Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`
`CERAMTEC GMBH
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`CERAMEDIC LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`TITLE: SINTERED AL2O3 MATERIAL, PROCESS FOR ITS PRODUCTION
`AND USE OF THE MATERIAL
`Issue Date: May 23, 2000
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`CERAMEDIC LLC’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 001
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,066,584 (“the ’584 Patent”) ............. 3
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION .................................................................. 4
`
`IV. GOVERNING LAWS, RULES, AND PRECEDENT ................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest ............................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Redundant Grounds .................................................................... 8
`
`Claim Construction in Inter Partes Reviews ............................11
`
`D. Anticipation ...............................................................................12
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Inherency ...................................................................................12
`
`Obviousness ..............................................................................13
`
`V.
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE PETITION BECAUSE THE
`PETITION DOES NOT NAME ALL REAL PARTIES-IN-
`INTEREST. ...................................................................................................14
`
`INSTITUTE TRIAL ON
`VI. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT
`PETITIONER’S REDUNDANT GROUNDS. .............................................18
`
`A. As Applied to Claim 32, Ground 4 Is Redundant To
`Ground 2. ..................................................................................18
`
`B. As Applied To Claims 7, 13, and 37, Ground 4 Is
`Redundant To Ground 6. ...........................................................19
`
`C. As Applied To Claims 12 And 38, Grounds 6, 8, And 9
`Are Cumulative And Redundant. ..............................................20
`
`D. Ground 13 Is Entirely Redundant Of Ground 4. .......................20
`
`E.
`
`Summary of Remaining Grounds .............................................21
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 002
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD ADOPT PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS. .....................................................................................22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“dispersing α-Al2O3 powder . . . in an aqueous solution to
`create a mixture” (Claims 1, 2, 7, 15, 19, and 52) ...................22
`
`“dispersing methods” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 30, 31, 37, 38,
`and 52) .......................................................................................29
`
`“treating said mixture so as to create a shaped unsintered
`body” (Claims 1, 2, 7, 15, 19) ...................................................33
`
`“treating said mixture with a pressure process so as to
`create an unsintered precursor having a relative density
`of ρ ≥ 55%” (Claim 52) ...........................................................38
`
`VIII. BECAUSE PETITIONER RELIED UPON INCORRECT CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS, PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING ON ANY
`GROUND AS TO ANY CLAIM. .................................................................39
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Established A Reasonable Likelihood
`Of Prevailing Against Any Independent Claim Because
`Every Challenged Independent Claim Contains At Least
`One Limitation To Which Petitioner Applied An
`Incorrect Claim Construction. ...................................................39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 52 .............................................39
`
`Ground 3: Claim 19 ........................................................40
`
`Ground 6: Claim 7 ..........................................................41
`
`Ground 10: Claim 15 ......................................................42
`
`Ground 12: Claim 2 ........................................................42
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Established A Reasonable Likelihood
`Of Prevailing Against Any Dependent Claim Because
`Each Challenged Dependent Claim Contains The
`Limitations Of Its Parent Independent Claim. ..........................43
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, 30, 33, And 53 ...........................43
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 003
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 32 And 36 ..........................................44
`
`Ground 3: Claims 3, 20, 23, And 31 ...............................45
`
`Ground 4: Claims 11, 13, 32, And 37 .............................46
`
`Ground 5: Claim 35 ........................................................47
`
`Ground 6: Claims 12, 13, And 37 ...................................48
`
`Ground 7: Claims 8-10 ...................................................48
`
`Ground 8: Claims 12 And 38 ..........................................49
`
`Ground 9: Claim 38 ........................................................50
`
`10. Ground 10: Claims 16 And 17 ........................................50
`
`11. Ground 11: Claim 21 ......................................................51
`
`12. Ground 13: Claim 11 ......................................................52
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 004
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................12
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) ...................................................................................................... passim
`
`Amkor Tech. v. Tessera, Inc., Case IPR2013-00242, Paper 37 (PTAB Oct.
`11, 2013) ........................................................................................................10
`
`Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) ..............................................................................................34
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., Case IPR2013-
`00453, Paper 88 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2015) ................................................... passim
`
`CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing LLC, Case IPR2013-
`00033, Paper 122 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2014) .......................................... 24, 37, 38
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............. passim
`
`Function Media LLC v. Google, Inc. 708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............. 35, 36
`
`GEA Process Eng’g, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., Case IPR2014-00041,
`Paper 135 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2014) ..............................................................7, 18
`
`General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-01380, Paper 15 (PTAB Nov. 12, 2014) ...............................18
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................13
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................11
`
`In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491 (CCPA 1961) ..................................................................21
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) .............11
`
`In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) ..............................................................13
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .....................................11
`
`In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) .............................................................13
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 005
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................13
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ..............................................................................................................13
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................13
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Inc. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper
`7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ......................................................................... passim
`
`Mformation Techs. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir.
`2014) ....................................................................................................... 35, 36
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .....................12
`
`Osram GmbH v. Schubert, Case IPR2013-00459, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 27,
`2014) ..............................................................................................................10
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............ 23, 36, 38
`
`RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc., Case IPR2014-00171, Paper 45 (PTAB June 5,
`2014) ....................................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................13
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, 522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........34
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) .................................................... 1, 7, 14, 17
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................11
`
`U.S. Postal Service v. Return Mail, Inc., CBM2014-00116, Paper 24 (PTAB
`Feb. 20, 2015) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc’ns, Inc., Case IPR2013-00288, Paper 23
`(PTAB Jan. 10, 2014) ................................................................... 9, 19, 20, 21
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir.
`1987) ...................................................................................................... passim
`
`ZOLL Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00606,
`Paper 13 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2014)...................................................................... 7
`
`v
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 006
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`Statutes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) .................................................................................... 7, 14, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ...................................................................................................17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) ...............................................................................................10
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .........9, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 007
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`Letter Agreement Between CeraMedic LLC and CeramTec GmbH,
`Zimmer Holdings, Inc., Zimmer, Inc., Biomet, Inc., Smith &
`Nephew, Inc., and DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (Oct. 17, 2014)
`Defendant Biomet’s Original Answer and Counterclaim, D.I. 16 in
`CeraMedic LLC v. Biomet, Inc., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-1689 (N.D. Ind.)
`Defendant DePuy’s Original Answer and Counterclaim, D.I. 8 in
`CeraMedic LLC v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-
`1771 (N.D. Ind.)
`Defendant Smith & Nephew’s Original Answer and Counterclaim,
`D.I. 17 in CeraMedic LLC v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., C.A. No. 2:14-
`cv-02564 (W.D. Tenn.)
`Zimmer Defendants’ Original Answer and Counterclaim, D.I. 8 in
`CeraMedic LLC v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-
`1688 (N.D. Ind.)
`CeraMedic’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions And Local
`Patent Rule 3-1 Disclosures, CeraMedic LLC v. CeramTec GmbH,
`C.A. No. 3:14-cv-1969 (N.D. Ind.)
`
`
`CeraMedic
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 008
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`CeraMedic LLC (“CeraMedic” or “Patent Owner”) submits this preliminary
`
`response to the petition that CeramTec GmbH (“CeramTec” or “Petitioner”) filed
`
`on December 12, 2014. The Petition challenges Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-17, 19-21,
`
`23, 30-38, and 52-53 of U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584 (“the ’584 Patent”) on thirteen
`
`alleged grounds of unpatentability. The Board should deny institution.
`
`
`
`First, the Board should reject the Petition because the Petition does not name
`
`all real parties-in-interest. Specifically, Petitioner omitted its customers, including
`
`Biomet, Inc., Zimmer, Inc., Zimmer Holdings, Inc., DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., and
`
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. (collectively, the “Implant Manufacturers”) as real parties-
`
`in-interest to this proceeding. The Implant Manufacturers are real parties-in-
`
`interest under the framework set forth in Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008).
`
`The Implant Manufacturers agreed to be bound by any determination of validity or
`
`infringement rendered in the infringement lawsuit CeraMedic brought against
`
`Petitioner in the Northern District of Indiana. (Ex. 2001.) Further, Petitioner
`
`shares an interest with the Implant Manufacturers in invalidating the ’584 Patent,
`
`and Petitioner’s law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright (US) LLP, represents each of the
`
`Implant Manufacturers against whom CeraMedic has asserted infringement of the
`
`’584 Patent. (Ex. 2002, at 11 (Biomet, Inc.); Ex. 2003, at 12 (DePuy Orthopaedics,
`
`Inc.); Ex. 2004, at 7 (Smith & Nephew, Inc.); Ex. 2005, at 11 (Zimmer Holdings,
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 009
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc. and Zimmer, Inc.).) Thus, the Implant Manufacturers’ interests are adequately
`
`represented in this proceeding. Additionally, the Implant Manufacturers must be
`
`declared real parties-in-interest to prevent relitigation of this Petition through
`
`Petitioner’s proxies, the Implant Manufacturers. Because Petitioner did not name
`
`any of the Implant Manufacturers as real parties-in-interest in its Petition, the
`
`Petition is incomplete under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and must be denied, as set forth
`
`in Section V.
`
`
`
`Second, the Board should deny Petitioner’s redundant grounds for
`
`unpatentability. Petitioner has presented thirteen grounds of invalidity, many of
`
`which apply one or more of the same references to the same claims. In one
`
`extreme instance, Petitioner applied the same pair of references to Claim 11 in two
`
`separate grounds, Ground 4 and Ground 13. Further, the Petitioner made no effort
`
`to compare the strengths and weaknesses of its redundant grounds. The redundant
`
`grounds are explained below in Section VI.
`
`
`
`Third, the Board should adopt CeraMedic’s claim constructions and reject
`
`Petitioner’s claim constructions. CeraMedic’s proposed constructions rely solely
`
`on the specification, claims, and file history of the ’584 Patent, while Petitioner’s
`
`unreasonably broad constructions are completely unmoored from the intrinsic
`
`record. CeraMedic explains why its claim constructions are correct and why
`
`Petitioner’s claim constructions are incorrect in Section VII.
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0010
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fourth, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`on any non-redundant ground under CeraMedic’s correct claim constructions.
`
`Each and every claim that Petitioner challenged contains at least one limitation that
`
`Petitioner construed incorrectly. Because Petitioner relied on incorrect claim
`
`constructions, it has not satisfied its burden of showing that it is entitled to relief.
`
`See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001) (“Only when a claim is properly understood can a determination be
`
`made . . . whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the claimed
`
`invention.”). The Board should deny institution entirely, as set forth in
`
`Section VIII.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,066,584 (“the ’584 Patent”)
`
`
`
`The ’584 Patent “relates to the field of ceramics and concerns sintered Al2O3
`
`compositions produced from corundum powder and also methods for the use of the
`
`invented compositions as medical implants or tool material.” (Ex. 1001, Abstract.)
`
`Two advantages of the sintered materials manufactured according to the processes
`
`taught by the ’584 Patent are high flexural strength and high Vickers hardness,
`
`which make those materials suitable for a wide range of medical and industrial
`
`applications. (Id. at 9:30-40.) As one example, sintered materials manufactured
`
`according to the teachings of the ’584 Patent are particularly useful in medical
`
`implants. (Id. at 9:33-35.) One particularly surprising aspect of the sintered
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0011
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`materials manufactured according to the processes taught by the ’584 Patent is that
`
`they have both exceptional hardness and an average grain size at or below 2 μm,
`
`when prior studies suggested that no further increase in hardness could occur
`
`below a 3-4 μm average grain size. (Id. at 9:6-15.)
`
`The first assignee of the ’584 Patent was Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur
`
`Förderung der Angewandten Forschung e.V., Germany (“Fraunhofer”), a
`
`non-profit scientific and engineering research organization with over 23,000
`
`employees. Fraunhofer subsequently assigned the ’584 Patent to CeraMedic.
`
`CeraMedic provides patent licensing and commercialization services to Fraunhofer
`
`to help Fraunhofer realize the value of the ’584 Patent and the technology claimed
`
`therein.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION
`
`
`
`The Petition relies on eight alleged prior art references:
`
`1. Jiang Tsair Lin, Temperature History and Microstructure of Alumina (May
`
`1992) (Ph.D. Dissertation) (“Lin”) (Ex. 1002);
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 4,777,153 to Sonuparlak & Aksay (“Sonuparlak”) (Ex.
`
`1003);
`
`3. Tsung-Shou Yeh, Effect of green microstructure on the densification and
`
`microstructural evolution of alumina (Ph.D. Dissertation) (1989) (“Yeh”)
`
`(Ex. 1004);
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0012
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Tsung-Shou Yeh and Michael D. Sacks, Low-Temperature Sintering of
`
`Aluminum Oxide, 71 J. AM. CERAMICS SOC. 841 (1988) (“Yeh & Sacks”)
`
`(Ex. 1005);
`
`5. Hiroyuki Mizuta et al., Preparation of High-Strength and Translucent
`
`Alumina by Hot Isostatic Pressing, 75 J. AM. CERAMICS SOC. 469 (1992)
`
`(“Mizuta”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`6. U.S. Patent No. 4,647,477 to DeLuca (“DeLuca”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`7. D. Cannell & P. Trigg, Processing of Electronic Ceramics, in ADVANCED
`
`CERAMIC PROCESSING AND TECHNOLOGY 95 (Jon G.P. Binner ed.,
`
`1990) (“Cannell”) (Ex. 1008); and
`
`8. Martin P. Jones & Gerald V. Blessing, Real-Time Ultrasonic Nondestructive
`
`Evaluation of Green State Ceramic Powders During Compaction, 2
`
`NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING COMM. 155 (1986) (“Jones”) (Ex. 1009).
`
`
`
`The Petitioner presents thirteen invalidity grounds based on various
`
`combinations of those eight prior art references. All thirteen grounds rely in whole
`
`or in part on Lin and/or Yeh, and all grounds are obviousness grounds except
`
`Grounds 1 and 6. A summary of each ground, in the order presented by Petitioner,
`
`5
`
`appears below:
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0013
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`1 Lin
`
`2 Lin
`
`§ 102(b) 1, 4, 5, 30, 33, 34, 52, 53
`
`§ 103(a) 32, 36
`
`3 Lin and Sonuparlak
`
`§ 103(a) 3, 19, 20, 23, 31
`
`4 Lin and Yeh
`
`§ 103(a) 7,1 11, 13, 32, 37
`
`5 Lin and Yeh & Sacks and Mizuta
`
`§ 103(a) 35
`
`6 Yeh
`
`7 Yeh
`
`§ 102(b) 7, 12, 13, 37
`
`§ 103(a) 8-10
`
`8 Lin and Yeh and Sonuparlak
`
`§ 103(a) 12, 38
`
`9 Yeh and Sonuparlak
`
`§ 103(a) 38
`
`10 Lin and DeLuca and Cannell
`
`§ 103(a) 15-17
`
`11 Lin and Sonuparlak and Yeh & Sacks § 103(a) 21
`
`12 Lin and Jones
`
`13 Yeh and Lin
`
`
`
`§ 103(a) 2
`
`§ 103(a) 11
`
`
`1 As described in CeraMedic’s infringement contentions in the related matters,
`
`CeraMedic has alleged that Claims 7, 11, and 12 have a priority date of April 14,
`
`1995. (Ex. 2006, at 3.)
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0014
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`IV. GOVERNING LAWS, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`
`
`“A petition for inter partes review ‘may be considered only if— . . . the
`
`petition identifies all real parties in interest.’” Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett
`
`Regulator Guards, Inc., Case IPR2013-00453, Paper 88, slip op. at 6 (PTAB Jan.
`
`6, 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2)) “The statutory requirement that a petition
`
`for inter partes review identify all real parties in interest defines a ‘threshold
`
`issue.’” Id. at 10 (quoting ZOLL Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp., Case
`
`IPR2013-00606, Paper 13, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2014)). That threshold
`
`issue may be raised at any time, including after institution. GEA Process Eng’g,
`
`Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., Case IPR2014-00041, Paper 135, slip op. at 12-13
`
`(PTAB Dec. 23, 2014) (vacating decision on institution and terminating trial in
`
`view of petitioner’s failure to name all real parties-in-interest).
`
`
`
`The Board applies the analytical framework set forth in Taylor v. Sturgell,
`
`553 U.S. 880 (2008), in determining whether a third party to a petition is a real
`
`party-in-interest that must be named in a petition. That analytical framework
`
`includes consideration of six factors:
`
`(1) whether the third party agrees to be bound by the
`
`determination of issues in the proceeding; (2) whether a
`
`pre-existing substantive legal relationship with the party
`
`named in the proceeding justifies binding the third party;
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0015
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(3) “in certain limited circumstances,” whether the third
`
`party is adequately represented by someone with the
`
`same interests; (4) whether the third party exercised or
`
`could have exercised control over the proceeding; (5)
`
`whether the third party is bound by a prior decision and is
`
`attempting to rehear the matter through a proxy; and (6)
`
`whether a statutory scheme forecloses successive hearing
`
`by third parties.
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co., Case IPR2013-00453, Paper 88, slip op. at 9. Though the
`
`Board often focuses on the fourth factor, the “control factor” is not itself
`
`determinative. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (rejecting bright-line tests to determine whether a third party is a
`
`real party-in-interest). Indeed, the Office Patent Trial Guide emphasizes that no
`
`individual factor can be determinative. Id. at 48,760 (“In short, because rarely will
`
`one fact, standing alone, be determinative of the inquiry, the Office cannot
`
`prejudge the impact of a particular fact on whether a party is a ‘real party-in-
`
`interest’ or ‘privy’ of the petitioner.”).
`
`B. Redundant Grounds
`
`
`
`When presented with redundant grounds, the Board can and should deny
`
`institution on those redundant grounds. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas.
`
`Inc. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012). Indeed,
`
`“multiple grounds, which are presented in a redundant manner by a petitioner who
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0016
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`makes no meaningful distinction between them, are contrary to the regulatory and
`
`statutory mandates, and therefore are not all entitled to consideration.” Id. To
`
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding, the Board
`
`has discretion to deny a ground for redundancy without undertaking a substantive
`
`evaluation of the purported merits of that ground. U.S. Postal Service v. Return
`
`Mail, Inc., CBM2014-00116, Paper 24, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2015) (“We
`
`do not read § 328 . . . as requiring that every possible ground put forth by a
`
`petitioner needs to be substantively evaluated. Moreover, Rule 208(a) authorizes
`
`us to institute a post-grant review on some of the challenged claims and some of
`
`the grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a).”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving that its grounds are not redundant, and
`
`therefore must “articulate[] a meaningful distinction in terms of relative strengths
`
`and weaknesses with respect to the application of the prior art disclosures to one or
`
`more claim limitations” between grounds. Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc’ns,
`
`Inc., Case IPR2013-00288, Paper 23, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Jan. 10, 2014). If the
`
`Petitioner does not articulate a meaningful distinction in terms of relative strengths
`
`and weaknesses between two grounds applied to the same claim, those grounds are
`
`redundant, even if those grounds rely on entirely different alleged prior art
`
`references, and even if one ground is an anticipation ground and the other is an
`
`obviousness ground. See, e.g., Osram GmbH v. Schubert, Case IPR2013-00459,
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0017
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11, slip op. at 23 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (instituting on two anticipation
`
`grounds, but denying institution on all other anticipation and obviousness grounds
`
`for redundancy even though the denied grounds relied on different prior art than
`
`the instituted grounds); Amkor Tech. v. Tessera, Inc., Case IPR2013-00242, Paper
`
`37, slip op. at 6-7, 34 (PTAB Oct. 11, 2013) (granting institution on one
`
`obviousness ground for Claims 6-8 and denying as redundant on all other grounds
`
`as to those claims, including anticipation grounds).
`
`
`
`The Board has identified two types of redundancy that justify denial of
`
`institution on multiple grounds. The first type, horizontal redundancy, occurs
`
`when a Petitioner puts forth multiple grounds that apply different prior art
`
`references to the same claim limitation, without explaining any differences in the
`
`strengths and weaknesses of each ground. Liberty Mut. Ins., CBM2012-00003,
`
`Paper 7, slip op. at 3. As the Board further observed, “Because the references are
`
`not identical, each reference has to be better in some respect or else the references
`
`are collectively horizontally redundant.” Id.
`
`
`
`The second type of redundancy is vertical redundancy, which occurs “when
`
`there is assertion of an additional prior art reference to support another ground of
`
`unpatentability when a base ground already has been asserted against the same
`
`claim without the additional reference and the Petitioner has not explained what
`
`are the relative strength and weakness of each ground.” Id. at 12. The policy
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0018
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`behind vertical redundancy is straightforward: “If either the base ground or the
`
`ground with additional reference is better from all perspectives, Petitioner should
`
`assert the stronger ground and not burden the Patent Owner and the Board with the
`
`other. If there is no difference, Petitioner should assert just one ground.” Id. at 12.
`
`C. Claim Construction in Inter Partes Reviews
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,766; see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`
`No. 2014-1301, slip op. at 16 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). The Federal Circuit has
`
`emphasized that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term must always
`
`be consistent with the specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
`
`1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142,
`
`1149 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (In applying broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`
`“the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.”).
`
`The express language of a claim in which a claim term appears also sets limits on
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of that claim term. Id. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of a claim term must also be consistent with the
`
`prosecution history. See Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Additionally, the prosecution history, while not literally within
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0019
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the patent document, serves as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim
`
`construction. This remains true in construing patent claims before the PTO.”)
`
`D. Anticipation
`
`
`
`It is well-established that a “claim is anticipated only if each and every
`
`element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described,
`
`in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`
`814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, “[b]ecause the hallmark of
`
`anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four
`
`corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the
`
`claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`E.
`
`Inherency
`
`
`
`It is well settled that the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in
`
`question.” Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009) (emphasis added). “Inherency, however, may not be established by
`
`probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a
`
`given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581
`
`(CCPA 1981). “Probabilities or possibilities” are insufficient to show that an
`
`alleged prior art reference discloses something beyond its explicit teachings. Id.
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2308 Page 0020
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2308
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00398
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`F. Obviousness
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual findings: (1)
`
`the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between t