UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`TERREMARK NORTH AMERICA LLC, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK
`SERVICES INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., TIME WARNER CABLE
`INC., ICONTROL NETWORKS, INC. and COXCOM, LLC
`Petitioners,
`v.
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`Patent 7,397,363
`________________
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE OF PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 2
`
` A. Overview of the ‘363 Patent .......................................................................... 2
`
` B. Prosecution History of the ‘363 Patent .......................................................... 6
`
` C. Petition Overview .......................................................................................... 6
`
`III. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT IS BARRED UNDER
` 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............................................................................................. 9
`
` D. The Petitions Were Not Timely Filed, Fees Were Not Timely Paid and the
` Petitions Were Not Timely Served .............................................................. 13
`
`
`
` E. Petitioners have Engaged in a Course of Conduct that has Deprived the
` PTAB of Jurisdiction Over This Petition ...................................................... 17
`
`
`
` F. Petitioners Intentionally Delayed Completing the Filing of the Petition Until
` June 24, 2015 ................................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`
`
`i i
`
` A. Background .................................................................................................. 10
`
` B. The Petition is Time Barred ......................................................................... 12
`
` C. Petitioners’ Motion ...................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` G. Petitioners’ Counsel have Breached Their Duties of Candor
` and Good Faith ............................................................................................. 18
`
` H. The Board’s Prior Decisions are Distinguishable ........................................ 21
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 22
`
`
`
` A. Legal Standards ............................................................................................ 22
`
` B. Petitioners have Failed to Submit Claim Constructions for any of the Key
` Terms Supporting Its Invalidity Arguments ................................................. 25
`
` C. “first signal,” “second signal” and “third signal” ........................................ 27
`
` D. “automatically received” .............................................................................. 27
`
` E. “at least one of activate, de-activate, disable, re-enable and control” .......... 28
`
` F. “premises” .................................................................................................... 28
`
` G. “remote” ....................................................................................................... 29
`
` H. “located at” .................................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. RESPONSE TO PROPOSED GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY ........................ 30
`
`
`
` A. Petitioners’ Proposed Grounds Fail to Comply with the Applicable
` Rules ........................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
` B. The Proposed Grounds Fail to Meet the Burden of Showing a Reasonable
` Likelihood of Prevailing .............................................................................. 34
`
`
`
`
`
` C. Ground 1 ...................................................................................................... 36
`
` 1. Goldberg fails to teach a first processing device remote from the
` premises .................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`ii ii
`
`

`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
` 2. Goldberg fails to teach that the first processing device determines whether
` an action or an operation associated with information contained in the
` second signal is an authorized or allowed action ..................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
` D. Ground 2 ...................................................................................................... 40
`
` E. Ground 3 ....................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`EX2001 Declaration of René A. Vazquez
`Proof of Service indicating that Verizon Communications, Inc. was
`served with a Complaint alleging infringement of the ’363 Patent on
`June 23, 2104 in the matter of JCMS v. Terremark North America
`LLC, C.A. No. 14-525-GMS (D. Del.)
`EX2003 Terremark’s Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement in the matter of JCMS v.
`Terremark North America LLC, C.A. No. 14-525-GMS (D. Del.)
`Substitution of Terremark North America LLC in place of Verizon
`Communications Inc. in the matter of JCMS v. Terremark North
`America LLC, C.A. No. 14-525-GMS (D. Del.)
`Proof of Service indicating that Time Warner Inc. was served with a
`Complaint alleging infringement of the ’363 Patent on June 23, 2104
`in the matter of JCMS v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., C.A. No. 14-524-
`GMS (D. Del.)
`USPS Tracking data for package containing service copies of
`IPR2015-01482, -01485 and -01486, indicating shipment on June 24,
`2105
`FedEx Tracking data for package containing service copies of
`IPR2015-01466, -01477, -01478 and -01484, indicating shipment on
`June 24, 2105
`EX2008 Email dated July 17, 2015 from Patent Owner’s counsel R. Vazquez to
`Petitioners’ counsel C. Holloway
`EX2009 Email dated July 29, 2015 from Petitioners’ counsel C. Holloway to
`Patent Owner’s counsel R. Vazquez
`EX2010 Email dated July 31, 2015 from Petitioners’ counsel C. Holloway to
`Patent Owner’s counsel R. Vazquez
`EX2011 U.S. Patent No. 6,204,760 to Brunius
`“Supplement to the Remarks for the Amendment filed on October 24,
`2007” filed on November 23, 2007 during prosecution of the patent
`application that issued as related U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363
`
`
`
`iv iv
`
`EX2012
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2002
`
`EX2004
`
`EX2005
`
`EX2006
`
`EX2007
`
`

`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC (“JCMS”)
`
`respectfully submits this Preliminary Response of Patent Owner (“Preliminary
`
`Response”) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107. This
`
`Preliminary Response responds to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”)
`
`filed by Petitioners regarding claims 1, 3-5, 8, 13-17 and 20 (“Challenged Claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363 (“the ‘363 patent”).
`
`
`
`This Preliminary Response is timely filed under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is filed within three months of the July 7, 2015 date of the
`
`Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper No. 3).
`
`
`
`JCMS requests that the Board not institute an inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`because Petitioners have failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing with respect to any of the Challenged Claims, thereby failing to meet the
`
`threshold for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`The three proposed grounds of rejection are substantively and procedurally
`
`flawed, as will be explained below. Further, none of the cited references teach
`
`important properly construed claim limitations.
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Richard Bennett, makes statements and opines on
`
`issues related to: (1) the state of the art at the time of the invention; (2) the prior art
`
`used in Petitioners’ grounds of rejection; and (3) how the prior art renders the
`
`claims obvious. However, Petitioners have failed to propose claim constructions
`
`for certain key terms in the claims that support Dr. Bennett’s opinions, and that
`
`support Petitioners’ invalidity arguments. As such, Dr. Bennett’s analysis and
`
`declaration is fundamentally flawed and should be given no weight.
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ failure to construe certain key terms renders an evaluation of the
`
`merits of Petitioners’ invalidity arguments impossible. This failure alone is
`
`sufficient reason to deny institution of inter partes review.
`
`
`
`In the end, the Petition is materially deficient and fails to set forth sufficient
`
`evidence that Petitioners have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to
`
`any of the Challenged Claims, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). JCMS
`
`respectfully submits that the Board should conserve resources by declining to
`
`institute this meritless proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Overview of the ‘363 Patent
`
`2 2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘363 patent is directed at a novel and unconventional system for, inter
`
`
`alia, remotely-controlling and/or monitoring systems located at vehicles and
`
`premises. EX1001 at 1:23-30. The Challenged Claims are directed to a specially
`
`assembled and programmed apparatus for detecting a state of disrepair of a
`
`premises system and/or device from a remote location.
`
`
`
`At the time of the claimed invention, existing premises monitoring, control
`
`and/or security systems shared a similar and conventional architecture. Namely,
`
`such systems generally utilized various sensors located at the premises (e.g., door
`
`sensors, window sensors, motion sensors) and a main controller located at the
`
`premises that receives signals from the various sensors.
`
`
`
`For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,204,760 to Brunius (“Brunius”) discloses a
`
`security system for a building complex that is representative of the conventional
`
`systems that existed at the time of the claimed invention. EX2011. Brunius
`
`describes a typical security system existing at the time as follows:
`
`“In a
`
`typical security system, a main controller
`
`communicates with sensors positioned throughout a
`
`surveillance area, such as a home or business, to monitor
`
`various security conditions . . . [t]he control panel is
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`typically placed in a remote location in the surveillance
`
`area such as in a basement or utility closet . . . [t]he
`
`sensors placed throughout the surveillance area may
`
`include door/window sensors, passive infrared sensors
`
`for motion, temperature sensors, and the like . . . [w]hen
`
`a change in condition is sensed, the transmitter associated
`
`with a sensor transmits a sensor signal . . . to the main
`
`controller. When the resident opens a door that is
`
`monitored by a door/window sensor, the sensor transmits
`
`a sensor signal to the main controller indicating that the
`
`door has been opened . . . [i]f the security system is not
`
`disarmed within the entry delay, e.g., thirty seconds, the
`
`main controller . . . may sound an alarm. Also, the main
`
`controller may be tied to a telephone system for the
`
`purpose of notifying a security agency or police of the
`
`alarm condition.” (emphasis added). EX2011 at 1:15-36.
`
`
`
`Thus, conventional security systems at the time of the claimed invention
`
`would utilize sensors located at the premises (the surveillance area in Brunius) that
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sends sensor signals to a main controller which, although located remote from the
`
`sensors, is still located at the premises (the examples given in Brunius are a
`
`basement or utility closet). Further, the main controller could, optionally, send a
`
`notification signal to a security agency or police in response to an alarm condition.
`
`
`
`One capability missing from conventional systems existing at the time of the
`
`claimed invention is the ability of an owner or occupant of the premises, as
`
`opposed to a monitoring entity such as a security agency or police, to remotely
`
`control the premises security system or monitor conditions at the premises. Indeed,
`
`this is one of the problems addressed by the ‘363 patent, which utilizes a unique
`
`and unconventional system made up of special purpose devices that enable owners
`
`or occupants of vehicles and/or premises to monitor the vehicle or premises and/or
`
`exert control over devices located at the vehicle or premises. As indicated in the
`
`‘363 patent:
`
`“While anti-theft and/or security systems exist for
`
`residential and/or commercial premises, such systems fail
`
`to enable the owner or occupant and/or other authorized
`
`individual to conveniently and effectively exercise and/or
`
`perform control, monitoring and/or security functions
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with
`regards
`to
`these premises. The ability
`to
`
`conveniently and effectively enable one to exercise
`
`and/or to perform control, monitoring and/or security
`
`functions would prove to be invaluable in allowing
`
`owners, occupants and/or other authorized individuals to
`
`exercise and/or to provide control, monitoring and/or
`
`security functions over these premises, from a remote
`
`location and at any time.” (emphasis added). EX1001 at
`
`2:63 – 3:08.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘363 Patent
`
`The patent application that issued as the ‘363 patent was filed on September
`
`
`
`
`
`16, 2002. EX1001. The ‘363 patent issued on July 8, 2008. Id.
`
`During prosecution, the applicant chose to be his own lexicographer and
`
`provided explicit definitions for various terms, including “remote,” “premises” and
`
`“located at,” in “Supplement to the Remarks for the Amendment filed on October
`
`24, 2007” filed on November 23, 2007 during prosecution of the patent application
`
`that issued as the ‘363 patent (see EX2012, hereinafter “First Remarks”).
`
`C.
`
`Petition Overview
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners have proposed three grounds of invalidity and rely on the
`
`following three references:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Goldberg, K., et al., “Beyond the Web: manipulating the real world”,
`
`published by NH Elsevier in Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 28 (1995) at
`
`209-219 (“Goldberg”);
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Sheng, Samuel et al., “A Portable Multimedia Terminal: Successful
`
`personal communications terminals will depend upon the smooth integration of
`
`computation and communications facilities in a lightweight unit,” published in
`
`IEEE Communications Magazine (December 1992) at 64-75 (“Sheng”); and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,372 to Busak et al. (“Busak”).
`
`The table below summarizes Petitioners’ grounds of invalidity.
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`Claims
`1, 8 and 20
`
`3 and 4
`
`5 and 13-17
`
`Proposed Rejections
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Goldberg
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Goldberg in view of Sheng
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Goldberg in view of Busak
`
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim. It is reproduced below:
`
`7 7
`
`

`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`An apparatus, comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`a first processing device, wherein the first processing device at least
`
`one of generates a first signal and transmits a first signal for at least one of
`
`activating, deactivating, disabling, re-enabling, and controlling an operation of, at
`
`least one of a premises system, a premises device, a premises equipment, a
`
`premises equipment system, a premises component, and a premises appliance, of
`
`or located at a premises, wherein the first processing device is associated with a
`
`web site, and further wherein the first processing device is located at a location
`
`remote from the premises,
`
`
`
`wherein the first processing device at least one of generates the first
`
`signal and transmits the first signal in response to a second signal, wherein the
`
`second signal is at least one of generated by a second processing device and
`
`transmitted from a second processing device, wherein the second processing device
`
`is located at a location which is remote from the first processing device and remote
`
`from the premises, wherein the first processing device determines whether an
`
`action or an operation associated with information contained in the second signal,
`
`to at least one of activate, de-activate, disable, re-enable, and control an operation
`
`of, the at least one of a premises system, a premises device, a premises equipment,
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a premises equipment system, a premises component, and a premises appliance, is
`
`an authorized or an allowed action or an authorized or an allowed operation, and
`
`further wherein the first processing device at least one of generates the first signal
`
`and transmits the first signal to a third processing device if the action or the
`
`operation is determined to be an authorized or an allowed action or an authorized
`
`or an allowed operation, wherein the third processing device is located at the
`
`premises,
`
`
`
`wherein the second signal is transmitted to the first processing device
`
`via, on, or over, at least one of the Internet and the World Wide Web, and further
`
`wherein the second signal is automatically received by the first processing device,
`
`wherein the first signal is transmitted to and automatically received by the third
`
`processing device, wherein the third processing device at least one of generates a
`
`third signal and transmits a third signal for at least one of activating, de-activating,
`
`disabling, re-enabling, and controlling an operation of, the at least one of a
`
`premises system, a premises device, a premises equipment, a premises equipment
`
`system, a premises component, and a premises appliance, in response to the first
`
`signal.
`
`III. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT IS BARRED
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`

`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`Background
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`In spite of well-known risks and in the face of clear warnings, Petitioners
`
`intentionally engaged in a deliberate course of conduct that should have, and
`
`properly did, result in their petitions being accorded a filing date of June 24, 2015
`
`– one day after the statutory bar period. Now, Petitioners seek to have the Board
`
`save them from the consequences flowing directly from their decisions.
`
`Two of the Petitioners (Terremark and Time Warner) were served with
`
`complaints for infringement of the ’363 and 130 patents on June 23, 2014.
`
`(EX2001 (hereinafter “Vazquez Decl.,”) ¶¶ 1-4, EX2002-2005). Over the last
`
`year, the parties have engaged in extensive discovery in the District of Delaware.
`
`This discovery includes Initial Disclosures, interrogatories and requests for
`
`documents directed to each Defendant, production and review of more than 4,600
`
`pages of “core technical documents,” and initial scheduling of depositions. Initial
`
`infringement and invalidity contentions have also been exchanged. In February
`
`2015, the parties jointly requested, and the Court entered, a case progression
`
`schedule with significant dates including: Claim Construction Opening Brief
`
`(October 23, 2015); Answering Brief (November 20); and Markman Hearing
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(December 21). The Court also set dates for fact and expert discovery, summary
`
`judgment, and trial.
`
`In late June 2015, without warning, Petitioners here filed seven petitions
`
`seeking IPR.1 On June 22, these Petitioners filed, but intentionally did not serve,
`
`IPR2015-1466. Then on June 23, Petitioners filed, but intentionally did not serve,
`
`IPR2015-1476 and 1477. Then on June 24, a day after the one year bar, Petitioners
`
`finally filed the present Petition and petitions for IPR2015-1482, 1484 and 1486,
`
`finally payed for the present Petition and the petitions for IPR2015-1482, 1484
`
`and 1486, and finally served all seven petitions. Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 7-8, Exh.
`
`2006-2007. Each of these filings has been marred by errors, as well as repeated,
`
`intentional misrepresentations to Patent Owner and the PTAB, including the filing
`
`of false certificates of service (COS) for all seven petitions. Revised COSs were
`
`1 In addition to the seven petitions filed by Petitioners regarding five of Patent
`
`Owner’s patents, CoxCom has now filed three additional IPR petitions purportedly
`
`seeking review of the 130 patent (IPR2015-01760), the ’363 patent (IPR2015-
`
`01762) and the ‘010 patent (IPR2015-01765). Counsel for Petitioner CoxCom has
`
`also filed four additional petitions regarding Patent Owner’s patents for a different
`
`client, Nissan North America, Inc.
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`filed with respect to only four IPR petitions, and only after Patent Owner
`
`discovered and raised the false statements.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Petition is Time Barred
`
`IPR petitions may not be filed more than one year after Petitioners were
`
`served with a complaint alleging infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). This time bar
`
`is statutory and cannot be waived or extended by the Board. As discussed supra,
`
`two of the Petitioners (Terremark North America LLC and Time Warner Cable
`
`Inc.) were served with a complaint for infringement of the ’363 patent on June 23,
`
`2014. Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 1-4, EX2002-2005.
`
`
`
`The Petition was properly accorded a filing date of June 24, 2015, one day
`
`after the statutory one-year bar date expired. The Petition is thus statutorily barred
`
`as having been filed past the one-year window. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The same one-
`
`year time bar is found in the USPTO’s trial practice rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners’ Motion
`
`Petitioners filed a “Motion to Recognize June 23, 2015 as Filing date of
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,549,363 on August 5, 2015
`
`(“Motion”). Paper 6. Patent Owner filed “Patent Owner’s Joint Opposition to
`
`Motions to Recognize June 23 Filing Date of Petition” on August 19, 2015.
`
`
`12 12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“Opposition”) Paper 7. As of the date of this Preliminary Response, the Board had
`
`not yet ruled on Petitioners’ motion.
`
`
`
`For the reasons discussed infra, the filing date of June 24, 2015 that was
`
`properly accorded to the Petition should not be changed.
`
`The Petitions Were Not Timely Filed, Fees Were Not Timely Paid
`D.
`
` and the Petitions Were Not Timely Served
`
`IPR petitions are accorded a filing date only after three separate acts are
`
`completed. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.106 (filing of completed IPR petition; service
`
`of completed petition on patent owner at correspondence address of record; and
`
`payment of fees). Practitioners are warned by the regulations that “[a] petition to
`
`institute inter partes review will not be accorded a filing date until the petition
`
`satisfies [such] requirements.”
`
`Lawyers have long known of the risks of delaying filings until the last
`
`minutes. In fact, large law firms have warned each other of these risks for many
`
`years. See, e.g., “New Risks Every Litigator Should Know,” W. Kelly Stewart,
`
`Jeffrey L. Mills, Jones Day (2011). Such warnings routinely include descriptions
`
`of cases where filing parties have been denied the ability to pursue claims because
`
`of missed deadlines. See, e.g., id., p. 29, citing PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. U.S. Bank
`
`Nat’l Ass’n, Civ. No. 10-1197 (D. Minn. Oct. 4, 2010). Known risks include
`
`
`13 13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`improperly converting documents, filing the wrong document, and trying to file
`
`documents that exceed file-size limits. Id. Moreover, courts have advised
`
`attorneys
`
`that “[c]omputer failures, not unlike human failures, must be
`
`anticipated.” Martinelli v. Farm-Rite, 785 A. 2d 33, 36 (2001). See also Graves v.
`
`Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc., Case No. 07 cv 05471, p. 4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2011).
`
`Here, Petitioners’ motions and supporting exhibits demonstrate that
`
`Petitioners deliberately waited until literally the eleventh hour to finalize their
`
`petitions for filing. Petitioners admit that they did not finalize the “petitions,
`
`exhibits, powers of attorney and payment means” until 10:45 pm on June 23, 2015.
`
`IPR2015-01482, Paper 6 at 3. Despite the late hour, and despite representation by
`
`five attorneys from three different large law firms, Petitioners deliberately decided
`
`to have one paralegal file the petitions serially, rather than have multiple people
`
`file the petitions simultaneously. Id. at 4. Petitioners now contend that “the
`
`petitions were done in sequential order to avoid having to reload any previously
`
`submitted exhibits.” Id. But this explanation does not make sense, as the PRPS
`
`system requires separate uploading and filing of documents in each separate
`
`petition. Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 9-11.
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, Petitioners own filings demonstrate this did not happen.
`
`Petitioners did not cross-reference earlier-filed documents in later-filed petitions,
`
`but instead re-filed numerous duplicative exhibits in each of the three petitions at
`
`issue. See, e.g., “Curriculum Vitae of Richard Bennet,” filed as Exh. 1003 in
`
`IPR2015-01482, -01485 and -01486; “U.S. Patent Application No. 08/622,749,”
`
`filed as Exh. 1004 in IPR2015-01482, -01485 and -01486. Petitioners’ argument
`
`that “the second … and third petition … could not be filed until the first filing was
`
`completed” cannot be true. Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 9-11. Petitioners easily could have
`
`had multiple persons upload
`
`these petitions and supporting documents
`
`simultaneously. They simply chose not to do so. As a result, they did not
`
`accomplish any of the tasks required for according their IPRs a filing date of June
`
`23, and did not even attempt eight of those nine tasks until June 24.
`
`Defendants also deliberately decided not to serve the petitions and
`
`supporting documents on June 23. Petitioners allege that “Copies of the three
`
`petitions, corresponding exhibits and powers of attorney were printed no later than
`
`11:15 pm est and were prepared for service.” See, e.g., IPR2015-01482, Paper 7,
`
`Robinson Decl. at ¶ 4. Petitioners further allege that their counsel “was prepared to
`
`serve the three petitions and accompanying documents” by driving them to an
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`unidentified U.S. Post Office that is purportedly open until midnight. Id. Crucially,
`
`however, this service did not happen. Rather than serve the documents on June 23
`
`as required by the governing statute and trial practice rules, Petitioners’ counsel
`
`made a deliberate decision to forego even attempting such service until June 24.
`
`Petitioners have not offered the Board a declaration from the attorney
`
`involved, instead relying on their paralegal’s hearsay statement that Petitioners’
`
`counsel “remained in the office to focus on solving the problems we were
`
`experiencing with filing the petitions with the PRPS system.” Id. But Petitioners
`
`offer no explanation as to why their alleged filing problems prevented timely
`
`service. Filing and service are independent events, as evidenced by the fact that
`
`Petitioners printed the documents for service before completing the electronic
`
`filing. Id. There is no legitimate reason Petitioners could not have at least
`
`attempted service before midnight on June 23 as they now claim they planned to
`
`do. Petitioners’ counsel simply chose not to do so.
`
`Finally, although Petitioners acknowledge that they chose not to serve the
`
`petitions until June 24, they nevertheless filed a Certificate of Service (“COS”)
`
`with the Board in each petition attesting that the documents “ha[d] been served via
`
`U.S. Postal Service Express Mail on June 23, 2015.” See IPR2015-01482, Paper 1
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 44; IPR2015-01485, Paper 1 at 42; IPR2015-01486, Paper 1 at 60. Each COS is
`
`false, as the documents were admittedly not mailed until the next morning, June
`
`24, 2015. See, e.g., Paper 7, Robinson Decl. at Att. B; Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 7, 13,
`
`Exh. 2006. Petitioners have not filed a corrected COS for any of these Petitions.
`
`Vazquez Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. 2008.
`
`Petitioners have Engaged in a Course of Conduct that has
`E.
`
` Deprived the PTAB of Jurisdiction Over This Petitions
`
`As explained infra, the Petition was not timely filed, paid for or served. The
`
`Petition cannot now be “corrected” under 37 CFR § 42.104(c) because Petitioners
`
`have not identified any “clerical or typographical error” that prevented them from
`
`even timely attempting, much less timely accomplishing, any of the 9 tasks
`
`required for according the Petition an earlier filing date.
`
`Petitioners Intentionally Delayed Completing the Filing of the
`F.
`
` Petitions Until June 24, 2015
`
`Petitioners’ counsel claim they experienced some unknown “issue” with the
`
`electronic filing of the Petition. Even if their arguments regarding the Petition are
`
`credited, Petitioners still chose to make no effort to file, pay for, or serve the
`
`Petition until June 24, 2015. The facts demonstrate Petitioners’ counsel made a
`
`choice to not meet, or even attempt to meet, any of the statutory requirements. No
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01485
`
`
`Preliminary Response of Patent Owner
`Patent 7,397,363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`clerical error exists – it was a lapse in professional judgment resulting in loss of
`
`jurisdiction that cannot now be corrected.
`
`
`
`Of concern, none of these facts were presented by Petitioners to the PTAB
`
`when they sought leave to file their Motion. Nor were these facts presented to the
`
`Board paralegal who was contacted ex parte by Petitioners’ counsel. See, e.g.,
`
`Paper 7, Robinson Decl. at Exh. 2 (6/26 email from C. Holloway to
`
`trials@uspto.gov). But for this paralegal, Petitioners may have gotten away with
`
`their deceit.
`
`Petitioners’ Counsel have Breached Their Duties of Candor and
`G.
`
` Good Faith
`
`Practitioners before the Board owe a duty of candor, which is codified in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.11: “Parties and individuals involved in the proceeding have a duty of
`
`candor and good faith to the Office during the course of a proceeding.” This duty
`
`of candor is continuing. “[P]ractitioners ... understand that they are under a
`
`continuing duty of candor to update any changes in the representations that they
`
`have made.” Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd. IPR2013-0028
`
`(May 21, 2013).