Case IPR2015-00424
`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 IPR2015-00424
`
`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 2309 Page 001
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`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”) ............. 6
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE PETITION .................................................................. 8
`
`IV. GOVERNING LAWS, RULES, AND PRECEDENT ................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest ............................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction in Inter Partes Reviews ............................11
`
`C. Anticipation ...............................................................................12
`
`D.
`
`Inherency ...................................................................................12
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Obviousness ..............................................................................13
`
`Redundant Grounds ..................................................................15
`
`V.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ...............16
`
`A.
`
`“dimensionless defect density” (Claims 14 and 26-29):
`“the sum of the squares of the defect sizes per area
`analysed, wherein each defect’s size is the maximum
`recognizable extent of that defect in any direction in the
`analysed plane” .........................................................................16
`
`VI. THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE PETITION BECAUSE THE
`PETITION DOES NOT NAME ALL REAL PARTIES-IN-
`INTEREST. ...................................................................................................17
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON GROUNDS 1
`AND 2 BECAUSE PETITIONER DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT
`IGARASHI ANTICIPATES OR RENDERS OBVIOUS ANY OF
`CLAIMS 14 AND 26-29. ..............................................................................22
`
`A. Ground 1: Petitioner Did Not Establish That Igarashi
`Inherently Discloses A “Sintered Material Having A
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 002
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`Dimensionless Defect Density Of Less Than 30 x 10-3”
`As Recited In Claims 14 And 26. .............................................22
`
`
`
`
`B. Ground 2: Petitioner Did Not Establish That Igarashi
`Renders Obvious Claims 14 And 26-29 Because The
`Alleged Prior Art Did Not Recognize Dimensionless
`Defect Density As A Result-Effective Variable. ......................27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Igarashi Did Not Recognize Dimensionless Defect
`Density As A Result-Effective Variable. .......................27
`
`The Board Should Not Consider Any Argument
`Based On Alleged Public Knowledge Or Other
`References. ......................................................................31
`
`C. Ground 2: Petitioner Failed To Address The Objective
`Indicia Of Non-Obviousness Associated With Claims 14
`And 26-29. ................................................................................35
`
`VIII. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION ON GROUNDS 3
`AND 4 UNDER 35 U.S.C § 325(d) BECAUSE THE PATENT
`OFFICE DETERMINED THAT CLAIMS 14 AND 26-29 ARE
`PATENTABLE OVER HAYASHI DURING PROSECUTION. ................39
`
`INSTITUTION ON
`IX. THE BOARD SHOULD ALSO DENY
`GROUNDS 3 AND 4 BECAUSE PETITIONER DID NOT
`ESTABLISH THAT HAYASHI ANTICIPATES OR RENDERS
`OBVIOUS ANY OF CLAIMS 14 AND 26-29. ...........................................44
`
`A. Ground 3: Petitioner Did Not Establish That The P8
`Material In Hayashi Inherently Has “A Dimensionless
`Defect Density Of Less Than 30 x 10-3” As Recited In
`Claims 14 And 26. ....................................................................44
`
`B. Ground 3: Petitioner Did Not Establish That The P8
`Material In Hayashi Inherently Has “A Vickers Hardness
`Greater Than Or Equal To 1,750 At A Test Load From
`10 To 100 N” As Recited In Claims 14 And 26. ......................47
`
`C. Ground 4: Petitioner Did Not Establish That Hayashi
`Renders Obvious Claims 14 And 26-29. ..................................51
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 003
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Hayashi Did Not Recognize Dimensionless Defect
`Density As A Result-Effective Variable. .......................51
`
`Hayashi Does Not Inherently Disclose “A Vickers
`Hardness Greater Than Or Equal To 1,750 At A
`Test Load From 10 To 100 N.” ......................................53
`
`The Board Should Not Consider Any Argument
`Based On Alleged Public Knowledge Or Other
`References. ......................................................................54
`
`D. Ground 4: Petitioner Failed To Address The Objective
`Indicia Of Non-Obviousness Associated With Claims 14
`And 26-29. ................................................................................56
`
`X.
`
`INSTITUTE TRIAL ON
`THE BOARD SHOULD NOT
`PETITIONER’S REDUNDANT GROUNDS. .............................................57
`
`A. Grounds 1 And 3 Are Cumulative And Redundant. .................57
`
`B. Grounds 2 And 4 Are Cumulative And Redundant. .................58
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 004
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................. passim
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00453, Paper 88 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2015) .......................... passim
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................. passim
`
`GEA Process Eng’g, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00041, Paper 135 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2014) ...................... 10, 21
`
`General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-01380, Paper 15 (PTAB Nov. 12, 2014) ...............................21
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .............................................................................. 13, 36, 56
`
`In re Antonie,
`559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977) .............................................................. 14, 28, 30
`
`In re Applied Materials,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .....................................................................14
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`No. 2014-1301 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) ........................................................11
`
`In re Dow Chemical Co.,
`837 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................... 14, 30, 53
`
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) ........................................................ 12, 26, 46, 50
`
`In re Van Mater,
`144 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1975) ........................................................................43
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ............................................................ 13, 28, 52
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 005
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`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, 15
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).......................................................................................13
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods. Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................ 14, 36, 56
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Inc. Co.,
`Case CBM2012-00003, Papers 7 and 8 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ....... 15, 34, 55
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00885, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2014) .......................... 32, 54
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .....................................................................12
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs SpA,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .....................................................................11
`
`RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00171, Paper 45 (PTAB June 5, 2014) .......................... 19, 20
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................ 13, 28, 52
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008)...................................................................... 1, 10, 17, 20
`
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00869, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2014) ...................................34
`
`Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commc’ns, Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00288, Paper 23, (PTAB Jan. 10, 2014) .................. 15, 57, 58
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................... passim
`
`v
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 006
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) .............14
`
`ZOLL Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp.,
`Case IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2014) ...............................10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 12, 32
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................................................................................................40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ............................................................................................ 32, 54
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ................................................................................ 2, 9, 17, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ...................................................................................................20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................................................................................ 4, 39, 44
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ....................................................................................... 34, 55
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............11
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 007
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`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.)
`John W. Hutchinson, Mechanisms of Toughening In Ceramics,
`1989 THEORETICAL & APPLIED MECHANICS 139 (1989)
`Lina dela Cuesta et al., Preparation and Mechanical Properties of
`the CIP and HIP Fabricated Alumina Ceramics, 135 PHILIPPINE J.
`SCI. 105 (2006)
`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.)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,485,042
`European Patent No. EP 0756586 B1
`S.D. Skrovanek & R.C. Bradt, Microhardness of a Fine-Grain-Size
`Al2O3, 62 J. AM. CERAMIC SOC. 215 (1979)
`
`
`CeraMedic
`Exhibit No.
`2101
`
`2102
`
`2103
`
`2104
`
`2105
`
`2106
`
`2107
`
`2108
`
`2109
`2110
`2111
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 008
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board should deny institution on all grounds of
`
`the Petition filed by CeramTec GmbH (“CeramTec” or “Petitioner”) on December
`
`12, 2014. The Petition requests that the Board invalidate Claims 14 and 26-29 of
`
`U.S. Patent 6,066,584 (“the ’584 Patent”) as either anticipated or obvious over
`
`either Japanese Patent Application Kokai No. H2-255563 to Igarashi (Ex. 1103,
`
`“Igarashi”), standing alone, or U.S. Patent No. 4,952,537 to Hayashi (Ex. 1104,
`
`“Hayashi”), standing alone.
`
`
`
`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, “Petitioner’s Customers”) as real parties-in-
`
`interest to this proceeding. Petitioner’s Customers are real parties-in-interest under
`
`the framework set forth in Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008). Petitioner’s
`
`Customers agreed to be bound by any determination of validity or infringement
`
`rendered in the infringement lawsuit CeraMedic LLC (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“CeraMedic”) brought against Petitioner in the Northern District of Indiana. (Ex.
`
`2101.) Additionally, Petitioner shares an interest with Petitioner’s Customers in
`
`invalidating the ’584 Patent, and Petitioner’s law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright (US)
`
`LLP, represents each of Petitioner’s Customers against whom CeraMedic has
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 009
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`asserted infringement of the ’584 Patent. (Ex. 2102, at 11 (Biomet, Inc.); Ex.
`
`2103, at 12 (DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.); Ex. 2104, at 7 (Smith & Nephew, Inc.);
`
`Ex. 2105, at 11 (Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and Zimmer, Inc.).) Thus, Petitioner’s
`
`Customers’ interests are adequately represented in this proceeding. Petitioner’s
`
`Customers must also be declared real parties-in-interest to prevent relitigation of
`
`this Petition through Petitioner’s proxies, Petitioner’s Customers. Because
`
`Petitioner did not name any of Petitioner’s Customers 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 below in Section VI.
`
`Second, the Board should deny institution on Grounds 1 and 2—which rely
`
`on Igarashi alone— for failure to establish a reasonable likelihood that any of the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable over Igarashi. Petitioner has failed to establish
`
`a reasonable likelihood that either Igarashi anticipates (Ground 1) or renders
`
`obvious (Ground 2) Claims 14 and 26 of the ’584 Patent. Igarashi does not
`
`disclose, expressly or inherently, a “sintered material having a dimensionless
`
`defect density of less than 30 x 10-3” as recited in Claims 14 and 26 of the ’584
`
`Patent.
`
` Petitioner admits that Igarashi does not expressly disclose any
`
`dimensionless defect density limitation present in all of the challenged claims.
`
`(Petition at 4.) Rather, Petitioner argues for inherent disclosure, but Petitioner’s
`
`arguments that Igarashi inherently discloses sintered materials having a particular
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0010
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dimensionless defect density rely solely on the speculation of Petitioner’s expert,
`
`whose speculation that a high flexural strength implies a low dimensionless defect
`
`density did not take into account the numerous other factors that contribute to a
`
`material’s flexural strength. Indeed, as shown in Petitioner’s expert’s declaration,
`
`the specification of the ’584 Patent, and other published literature, at least eleven
`
`other factors affect a material’s flexural strength, showing that a material with a
`
`certain flexural strength does not unavoidably imply a low dimensionless defect
`
`density as the case law on inherent disclosure requires.
`
`
`
`Further, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Igarashi renders obvious the limitation “sintered material having a dimensionless
`
`defect density of less than 30 x 10-3” recited in Claims 14 and 26, much less the
`
`even lower dimensionless defect densities recited in Claims 27-29. Petitioner’s
`
`lone obviousness argument in the Petition—that the “number and size of defects”
`
`was allegedly an obvious variable to optimize (Petition at 22)—impermissibly
`
`distills the actual claim limitation, “dimensionless defect density,” down to its gist
`
`instead of considering the subject matter as a whole, in contravention of
`
`established Federal Circuit law. Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments are contradicted
`
`by its own expert, who states that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`care what a material’s DDD was.” (Ex. 1112 ¶ 35.) Petition er also completely
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0011
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`failed to address objective indicia of non-obviousness, including copying and
`
`unexpected results.
`
`The deficiencies in Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness challenges over
`
`Igarashi, Grounds 1 and 2, are set forth below in Section VII.
`
`
`
`Third, the Board should deny institution on Petitioner’s Grounds 3 and 4—
`
`which rely on Hayashi alone—because the Patent Office correctly held that the
`
`challenged claims are patentable over Hayashi during the original prosecution of
`
`the ’584 Patent. The file history of the ’584 Patent shows that the Examiner
`
`considered Hayashi thoroughly, even citing Hayashi in an Office Action to initially
`
`reject a pending claim that later was allowed and issued as Claim 26. (Ex. 1102 at
`
`224, 235-38, 245.) The applicants overcame the Examiner’s rejection based on
`
`Hayashi, and the Patent Office allowed each of the claims Petitioner now
`
`challenges. Petitioner presents no “new” Hayashi arguments in the Petition.
`
`Petitioner’s allegedly “new” arguments rely solely on Petitioner’s flawed
`
`inherency arguments and Petitioner’s distortion of the applicants’ arguments
`
`during prosecution. Thus, because Petitioner’s Grounds 3 and 4 present “the same
`
`or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously . . . presented to the
`
`Office,” the Board should deny institution on Grounds 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d). Section VIII explains in detail why the Board should not revisit the Patent
`
`Office’s previous determination of patentability.
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0012
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As an independent basis for denying institution on Petitioner’s Grounds 3
`
`and 4, Petitioner’s inherency and obviousness arguments based on Hayashi suffer
`
`all of the same deficiencies as its arguments based on Igarashi in Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`The Board should deny institution on Ground 3 because Hayashi does not disclose,
`
`expressly or inherently, a “sintered material having a dimensionless defect density
`
`of less than 30 x 10-3” as recited in Claims 14 and 26 of the ’584 Patent.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner has failed to establish that the Hayashi P8 material on which
`
`Petitioner relies inherently has “a Vickers hardness greater than or equal to 1,750
`
`at a test load from 10 to 100 N.” Hayashi does not disclose any test load at all for
`
`the P8 Material, and the ’584 Patent, along with other published literature, teaches
`
`that the Vickers hardness for a material is highly dependent on the test load used to
`
`measure it.
`
`
`
`The Board should deny institution on Ground 4 because Petitioner failed to
`
`establish that Hayashi discloses either the limitation “a Vickers hardness greater
`
`than or equal to 1,750 at a test load from 10 to 100 N” or the limitation “sintered
`
`material having a dimensionless defect density of less than 30 x 10-3” as recited in
`
`Claim 14 and 26. Nor has Petitioner shown that Hayashi renders obvious Claims
`
`27-29, which each recite “a Vickers hardness greater than or equal to 1,750 at a test
`
`load from 10 to 100 N” by virtue of their dependency from Claim 26, and which
`
`require even lower dimensionless defect densities than Claim 26. As with its
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0013
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obviousness arguments over
`
`Igarashi
`
`in Ground 2, Petitioner distilled
`
`“dimensionless defect density” down to its gist, “number and size of defects,” in
`
`contravention of Federal Circuit precedent. Petitioner’s expert admitted that the
`
`alleged prior art did not recognize “dimensionless defect density” as a result-
`
`effective variable. And Petitioner did not address the presence of objective indicia
`
`of non-obviousness, including copying and unexpected results. The substantive
`
`deficiencies in Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness challenges over Hayashi,
`
`Grounds 3 and 4, are set forth below in Section IX.
`
`
`
`Fourth,
`
`the Board should deny Petitioner’s redundant grounds for
`
`unpatentability. If the Board institutes trial, it should not do so on redundant
`
`grounds. The redundant grounds are explained below in Section X.
`
`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. 1101, Abstract.)
`
`Two advantages of the sintered materials described in the ’584 Patent are their 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, the sintered materials described in the ’584 Patent are particularly useful
`
`in medical implants. (Id. at 9:33-35.) One particularly surprising aspect of the
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0014
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sintered materials disclosed in 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 challenged claims of the ’584 Patent, Claims 14 and 26-29,1 generally
`
`relate to sintered materials with low “dimensionless defect densities,” as described
`
`below in Section V.A, and certain other physical characteristics, such as certain
`
`Vickers hardnesses, certain average grain sizes, and certain flexural strengths. (Ex.
`
`1101, at 16:1-7; id. at 16:66-17:10.). The challenged claims are reproduced below:
`
`14. The sintered material produced according to claim 7,
`
`wherein said sintered material comprises a mean grain
`
`size of 2.0 μm or less, a density of no less than 98.5% of
`
`a theoretical density, a Vickers hardness greater than or
`
`equal to 1,750 at a test load from 10 to 100 N, and a
`
`flexural strength of 800 MPa or greater, said sintered
`
`material having a dimensionless defect density of less
`
`than 30 x 10-3.
`
`
`
`
`1 As described in CeraMedic’s infringement contentions in the related matters,
`
`CeraMedic has alleged that Claims 14 and 26 have a priority date of April 14,
`
`1995. (Ex. 2108, at 3.)
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0015
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26. Sintered Al2O3 material comprising a mean grain
`
`size of 2.0 μm or less, and a density of no less than
`
`98.8% of a theoretical density, a Vickers hardness greater
`
`than or equal to 1,750 at a test load from 10 to 100 N,
`
`and a flexural strength of 800 MPa or greater, said
`
`sintered material having a dimensionless defect density
`
`of less than 30 x 10-3.
`
`27. The sintered material of claim 26, wherein the
`
`dimensionless defect density is 10 x 10-3.
`
`28. The sintered material of claim 26, wherein the
`
`dimensionless defect density is 4 x 10-3.
`
`29. The sintered material of claim 26, wherein the
`
`dimensionless defect density is 0.6 x 10-3.
`
`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 presents four grounds of unpatentability, shown in the below
`
`chart (Petition at 3-4):
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0016
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 3
`
`Ground 4
`
`Claim
`
`14
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`(Igarashi)
`
`(Igarashi)
`
`(Hayashi)
`
`(Hayashi)
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`Each ground relies on only one alleged prior art reference:
`
`
`
`- Ground 1: Claims 14 and 26 are allegedly anticipated by Igarashi;
`
`- Ground 2: Claims 14 and 26-29 are allegedly rendered obvious by Igarashi;
`
`- Ground 3: Claims 14 and 26 are allegedly anticipated by Hayashi; and
`
`- Ground 4: Claims 14 and 26-29 are allegedly rendered obvious by Hayashi.
`
`(Petition at 3-4).
`
`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
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0017
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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;
`
`(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.
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0018
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co., Case IPR2013-00453, Paper 88, slip op. at 9. Though the
`
`Board often focuses on the fourth factor, this “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. 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). However, if an inventor
`
`explicitly defines a
`
`term
`
`in
`
`the specification with “reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision,” then the inventor’s definition of that term controls.
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs SpA, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2309 Page 0019
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`C. 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).
`
`D.
`
`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 2309 Page 0020
`
`CeraMedic Ex. 2309
`CeramTec GmbH v. CeraMedic LLC
`Case IPR2015-01328
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00424
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,584
`
`E. Obviousness
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Obvio