throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE
`
`TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S IDENTIFICATION OF
`
`NEW EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT IN PETITIONER’S REPLY PAPERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`As authorized in the Board’s Order (Paper No. 24), Petitioner presents the
`
`following itemized identification of material contained in the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response that triggered or caused each item listed by Patent Owner to be included
`
`in Petitioner’s Reply. Given the limited specificity1 and breadth of Patent Owner’s
`
`contentions, in combination with the inherent subjectivity in characterizing
`
`arguments, Petitioner has endeavored to respond in-kind, but submits that the
`
`following may not be an exhaustive listing of all causal triggers.
`
`I. MATERIAL FROM PETITIONER’S REPLY (PAPER 21)
`1.
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 1–2 and 14–17: discussing the
`
`level of ordinary skill as to obviousness at the time of invention.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 5–13, 24, and 38: discussing ICI
`
`and predicting surfactant effectiveness.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 22–26 and 38: challenging the use
`
`of HLB to predict surfactant effectiveness.
`
`
`1 For example, item I.2. of Patent Owner’s list refers to Claims 1–19 (as opposed to
`
`Claims 1–16 at issue in IPR2015-01592). In addition, item I.3. of Patent Owner’s
`
`list refers to page 13 of Patent Owner’s Reply, which does not appear to be
`
`relevant to the statements made by Patent Owner—in an attempt to earnestly
`
`respond, Petitioner has presumed Patent Owner is referring to page 15.
`
`1
`
`

`
`II. MATERIAL FROM REPLY DECLARATION (EX. 1025)
`1.
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 22–26 and 38: challenging the use
`
`of HLB to predict surfactant effectiveness.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response at pages 25–26: discussing Dr. Rockstraw’s
`
`testimony regarding oil-soluble structures.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Joel A. Austin/
`Joel A. Austin
`Reg. No. 59,712
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`Patent 8,962,059
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Filed via PRPS
`
`Dear Board:
`
`
`
`I hereby certify on this 22nd day of August 2016, that a true and correct
`
`copy of
`
`the PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF NEW EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
`
`IN
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY PAPERS was electronically mailed in its entirety to:
`
`IPR2015-01592@bakerlaw.com
`
`jlucci@bakerlaw.com
`
`dfarsiou@bakerlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Michael Piery/
`Michael Piery
`Reg. No. 71,915
`
`
`
`
`
`2

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket