IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RARITAN AMERICAS, INC. D/B/A RARITAN COMPUTER, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SERVER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01597
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543
`Title: Vertical-Mount Electrical Power Distribution Plugstrip
`Filed: August 15, 2001
`Issued: May 9, 2006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page:
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... i 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. iii 
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE........................................ viii 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`II.  BACKGROUND OF THE ’543 PATENT ..................................................... 3 
`III.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY
`BECAUSE EACH OF THE GROUNDS ARE DUPLICATIVE AND
`THE FACTS JUSTIFY EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER §
`325(d) ............................................................................................................ 6 
`IV.  THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE PETITION BECAUSE IT
`DOES NOT SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`PREVAILING BY FAILING TO ANALYZE THE PRIORITY
`DATE AND QUALIFY THE REFERENCES AS “PRIOR ART” ............. 18 
`A. 
`Raritan’s Petition Fails to Allege a Credible Priority Date for
`the ’543 Patent Claims ....................................................................... 18 
`Raritan’s Petition Fails to Qualify the Cited References as Prior
`Art ...................................................................................................... 23 
`V.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 32 
`A. 
`Electrical Power Distribution Plugstrip ............................................. 32 
`1. 
`Characterization of the claimed electrical power
`distribution plugstrip as a one-piece design is consistent
`with the specification of the ’543 Patent ................................. 34 
`The dependent claims further support the proper
`construction of the claimed electrical power distribution
`plugstrip as a one-piece design ................................................ 36 
`Current-related Information Display Does Not Encompass a
`Single LED ........................................................................................ 37 
`1. 
`To construe an LED as a “current-related information
`display” is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the
`term “display” ......................................................................... 37 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`
`
`To construe an LED as a “current-related information
`display” is inconsistent with the specification of the ’543
`Patent ....................................................................................... 38 
`Intelligent Power Section/Module ..................................................... 40 
`C. 
`VI.  THE BOARD SHOULD REJECT THE INSTANT PETITION
`BECAUSE RARITAN FAILS TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CLAIMS CHALLENGED ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ...................................................................................... 40 
`A. 
`Petitioner’s Proposed Anticipation Rejection in Ground 3 and
`Proposed Obviousness Rejection in Ground 1 Is Based on
`Improper Interpretation of Claim Terms ............................................ 41 
`Petitioner Does Not Provide a Proper Basis for Combining Lee
`With the MSVM Literature in Ground 2 ........................................... 42 
`The Petition Does Not Provide a Proper Basis for Combining
`McNally With Liu ............................................................................. 46 
`The Petition Does Not Provide a Proper Basis for Combining
`Ewing ‘974 With Wiebe and Lee ...................................................... 48 
`The Petition Does Not Provide a Proper Basis for Combining
`the Baytech Literature With Lee ........................................................ 50 
`VII.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY AT LEAST SOME—IF NOT ALL—
`OF THE PETITION GROUNDS BECAUSE EACH IS
`HORIZONTALLY REDUNDANT AND MERELY CUMULATIVE ....... 52 
`VIII.  OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .................................... 60 
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 60 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 61 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`Actavis, Inc. v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01126, Paper 22 (Jan. 9, 2015) .......................................................... 30
`
`Page(s):
`
`Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00242, Paper 37 (Oct. 11, 2013) ............................................ 54, 56, 58
`
`Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01053, Paper 14 (Dec. 19, 2014) ................................................. 25, 28
`
`Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Millenium Biologix, LLC,
`IPR2013-00583, Paper 9 (Mar. 21, 2014) ................................................... 22, 23
`
`BLD Servs. LLC v. LMK Techs. LLC,
`IPR2015-00723, Paper 7 (Aug. 24, 2015) ........................................................... 9
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (Aug. 29, 2014) ....................................................... 25
`
`Cisco Sys. v. Constellation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-01085, Paper 11 (Jan. 9, 2015) .......................................................... 25
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA) LLC v. Acorda
`Therapeutics, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00720, Paper 15 (Aug. 24, 2015) ....................................................... 23
`
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Company,
`IPR2014-00628, Paper 21 (Oct. 20, 2014) .............................................. 7, 10, 16
`
`CoreLogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00219, Paper 6 (May 21, 2015) ................................................. 7, 8, 12
`
`Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
`868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ......................................................................... 33
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelecs. Int’l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 34
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Dell et al. v. Selene Commc’n,
`IPR2014-01411, Paper 23 (Feb. 26, 2015) ........................................................ 27
`
`Eiselstein v. Frank,
`52 F.3d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 21
`
`Globus Medical Inc. v. Depuy Synthes Products LLC,
`IPR2015-00099, Paper 15 (May 1, 2015) ......................................................... 27
`
`Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.,
`IPR2012-00006, Paper 43 (May 10, 2013) ....................................................... 55
`
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................. 24, 27, 29
`
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................................................... 23
`
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 23
`
`Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. Advanced Messaging
`Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01027, Paper 16 (Dec. 22, 2014) ................................................... 7, 15
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc., v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (Nov. 21, 2013) ....................................................... 10
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................. 43, 48, 50
`
`L-3 Commc’n Holdings, Inc. v. Power Survey, LLC,
`IPR2014-00832, Paper 9 (Nov. 14, 2014) ......................................................... 23
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 8 (Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................ passim
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00487, Paper 8 (Sep. 11, 2014)............................................................ 9
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 (June 19, 2014) ............................................... 8, 9, 15
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`Merial Ltd., v. Virbac,
`IPR2014-01279, Paper 13 (Jan. 22, 2015) .......................................................... 8
`
`Nexans, Inc. v. Belden Techs. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00057, Paper 11 (Apr. 16, 2013) ....................................................... 53
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP,
`IPR2013-00088, Paper 13 (June 13, 2013) ....................................................... 54
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00075, Paper 8 (May 3, 2013) ........................................................... 53
`
`Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. v. University of Washington,
`IPR2014-00512, Paper 12 (Sep. 15, 2014) ........................................................ 24
`
`Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp.,
`903 F.2d 796 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ........................................................................... 33
`
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 42
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 38
`
`Prism Pharma Co. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`IPR2014-00315, Paper 14 (July 8, 2014) ............................................................ 8
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................................... 21
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 21
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (Dec. 30, 2013) ....................................................... 17
`
`Shaw Industries Group Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems Inc.,
`IPR2013-00584, Paper 16 (Dec. 31, 2013) ................................................. 55, 59
`
`Square, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper 11 (Dec. 24, 2014) .................................................... 25
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`Standard Innovation Corp. v LELO, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (Apr. 23, 2015) ................................................. 26, 28
`
`Suffolk Technologies, LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 23
`
`Temporal Power, Ltd. v. Beacon Power, LLC,
`IPR2015-00146, Paper 8 (Mar. 19, 2015) ......................................................... 22
`
`Tempur Sealy Int’l Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.,
`IPR2014-01419, Paper 7 (Feb. 17, 2015).......................................................... 24
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00702 , Paper 13 (July 24, 2014) ................................................... 9, 16
`
`Unilever, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 (July 7, 2014) ........................................................ 6, 8
`
`Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`535 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 21
`
`Zetec, Inc., v. Westinghouse Elec. Co.,
`IPR2014-00384, Paper 10 (July 23, 2014) ........................................................ 31
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ........................................................................................... 29, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ........................................................................................... 29, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ...................................................................................................... 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 7, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .......................................................................................... passim
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.1(b) ................................................................................. 7, 17, 31, 55
`37 C.F.R§42.1(b) ............................................................................... ..7, 17, 31, 55
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .......................................................................... 25, 46, 49, 51
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) ........................................................................ .. 25, 46, 49, 51
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) .................................................................................... 28, 29
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) .................................................................................. .. 28, 29
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(c) .............................................................................................. viii
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(c) ............................................................................................ ..viii
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) .............................................................................................. viii
`37 C.F.R. §42.23(a) ............................................................................................ ..viii
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................. 2, 32
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ........................................................................................... .. 2, 32
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.02(I) ............................................ 33
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.02(I) .......................................... .. 33
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(I)(B), (A) .............................. 48, 50
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(I)(B), (A) ............................ .. 48, 50
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(I)(G) ..................................... 48, 50
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2143(I)(G) ................................... .. 48, 50
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,974 ...................................................................... 4, 48, 49, 50
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,974 .................................................................... .. 4, 48, 49, 50
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,711,613 ........................................................................................ 3
`U.S. Patent No. 6,711,613 ...................................................................................... .. 3
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543 ............................................................................... passim
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543 ............................................................................. ..passim
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,099,934 .................................................................................. 3, 22
`U.S. Patent No. 7,099,934 ................................................................................ .. 3, 22
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Vii
`
`

`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioner, Raritan Americas, Inc. d/b/a Raritan Computer, Inc., (“Raritan”),
`
`did not submit a statement of material facts in its Petition filed July 17, 2015
`
`(“Petition”) under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(c). Thus, no response is due under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(a), and Patent Owner Server Technology, Inc. (“Server Tech”) admits no
`
`facts.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Raritan’s Petition requesting inter partes review of Server Tech’s U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,043,543 (the ’543 Patent) suffers from procedural and substantive
`
`defects that justify denying the Petition.
`
`First, the Patent Office has already heard and weighed the evidence and the
`
`arguments in Raritan’s Petition. Section 325(d) provides an easy and obvious
`
`mechanism for the Board to exercise its discretion and deny the Petition in its
`
`entirety because this proceeding will be moot. The Petition alleges only identical or
`
`nearly identical grounds previously raised in a well-advanced inter partes
`
`reexamination of the same patent. See Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485.
`
`The Petition admits this fact by plainly stating—many times—“This is the same
`
`evidence and reasoning that the Patent Office Examiner relied on to reject [insert
`
`claim number]….” Instituting a Petition based on blatantly duplicative Grounds,
`
`evidence, and arguments does not ensure “the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution” of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. Because the Petition
`
`admittedly repackages the same information already presented to the Office in the
`
`reexamination and already heard by the Board, it should be denied.
`
`Second, the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`because it fails to provide any evidence of the priority date of the ’543 Patent
`
`claims or qualify the cited references as “prior art.” Specifically, Raritan simply
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`pulls the claims’ priority date out of thin air without citing any substantive
`
`supporting evidence or analysis. Even the duplicative evidence from the
`
`reexamination proceedings impermissibly incorporated into the Petition plainly
`
`and unequivocally contradicts Raritan’s priority date theory. Because the Petition
`
`does not correctly analyze priority or the prior art, the Petition should be denied.
`
`Third, Raritan’s proposed claim constructions do not provide any clarity to
`
`the terms, and are improper under the “broadest reasonable construction” standard
`
`defined in 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. The Petition provides a proposed claim construction
`
`lacking more clarity than the claim term itself, or proposes that a term should be
`
`given its plain and ordinary meaning only to go on to provide a limitation on such
`
`a plain and ordinary meaning. Consequently, the Petition should be denied
`
`Fourth, the Petition fails to provide any reason or fact-based analysis to
`
`combine the teachings of the prior art references in the obviousness grounds.
`
`Instead, the Petition provides unsupported reasons and conclusory statements
`
`asserting that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would be
`
`further motivated to combine references. Such conclusory statements in the
`
`Petition have no evidentiary support in the teachings of the cited references or in
`
`the knowledge of one of skill in the art, and cannot provide a sufficient reason to
`
`combine these references. Furthermore, to the extent that Raritan’s expert
`
`declaration provides a more reasoned or fact-based analysis (which it does not),
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`incorporation of such arguments into the Petition by reference is improper.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition has not met its burden of showing a reason to combine
`
`any of the combinations of alleged prior art, and the Petition should be denied.
`
`Fifth, even if the Board does not reject the Petition under § 325(d), the
`
`Petition only presents cumulative and horizontally-redundant Grounds. The
`
`Petition alleges multiple Grounds for each set of claims (1-14 and 15-23) without
`
`any meaningful distinction as to the references themselves, the related arguments,
`
`or how each is applied to the claims. The Petition itself must explain why any
`
`alleged differences in the references justify institution, and references have been
`
`determined redundant even if their teachings are not identical. Here, Raritan does
`
`not articulate any relative strength or weakness of any proposed Ground.
`
`For these reasons, the Board should deny the Petition in its entirety. If the
`
`Board institutes an inter partes review proceeding, Server Tech does not admit or
`
`otherwise concede the legitimacy of any Petition argument. Server Tech expressly
`
`reserves the right to rebut these arguments in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’543 PATENT
`The ’543 Patent was filed on August 15, 2001, and claims priority as a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 09/732,557, filed Dec. 8, 2000,
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,099,934 (’934 patent), which is a continuation-in-part
`
`of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 09/375,471, filed Aug. 16, 1999, issued as U.S. Patent
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`No. 6,711,613, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`08/685,436, filed July 23, 1996, issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,949,974.
`
`The ’543 Patent is directed to an electrical power distribution plugstrip,
`
`commonly referred to as a power distribution
`
`unit (PDU), connectable to one or more
`
`electrical loads in an electrical equipment rack.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’543 Patent, filed as Raritan’s
`
`Ex. 1001 (IPR page 4), reproduced here,
`
`illustrates many of the claimed features.
`
`In particular, the ’543 Patent discloses
`
`and claims an electrical power distribution
`
`plugstrip with the following five features: (1) a
`
`one-piece vertical enclosure; (2) power inputs
`
`and outputs; (3) power control relays to provide
`
`switching capability; (4) a current information
`
`display for local current monitoring, and (5) a
`
`current reporting system for remote management. Ex. 1001, at 17, claims 1, 15.
`
`This combination of features provides significant benefits and advantages over
`
`prior art systems.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`For example, the ’543 Patent describes a benefit that was not previously
`
`provided by PDUs. That is, “[t]he total input current display 104 can be used to
`
`advantage by a technician when installing or troubleshooting a RETMA equipment
`
`rack by watching how much current change is observed when each network
`
`appliance is plugged in and turned on.” Id. at 13, 3:16-20. This is a separate and
`
`distinct benefit from an overcurrent alarm, such as disclosed in certain primary
`
`references relied upon by the Petition. Simply having one or more LEDs does not
`
`allow a technician to observe the actual current drawn by a PDU or provide
`
`detailed information on the actual amount of headroom still available on the PDU,
`
`even if it is an effective alarm for indicating overcurrent thresholds being
`
`exceeded. In a data center having many equipment racks, loading equipment racks
`
`and PDUs to their capacity provides significant advantages, which can maximize
`
`the amount of equipment on a rack and reduce the number of PDUs needed to
`
`provide power to the equipment in the data center.
`
`The prior art PDUs referenced in the Petition simply do not contemplate
`
`using PDUs to help data centers maximize space or power efficiency on a rack-by-
`
`rack basis, much less by using a digital display. As to power management, the prior
`
`art references were singularly focused on setting off an alarm to warn of potential
`
`current overload and did not contemplate maximizing rack capacity. The
`
`documents of the MasterSwitch Vertical Mount (MSVM) Literature are
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`illustrative. Nothing in the MSVM Literature reflects that APC, the largest supplier
`
`of PDUs in this industry, recognized the benefit of a local digital display of current
`
`information to help data centers maximize rack capacity.
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY
`BECAUSE EACH OF THE GROUNDS ARE DUPLICATIVE AND
`THE FACTS JUSTIFY EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER § 325(d)
`
`The law creates a simple way for the Patent Office to exercise its discretion
`
`to avoid instituting duplicative proceedings. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board has
`
`confirmed this discretionary power as broad and extensive. Unilever, Inc. v. The
`
`Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506, Paper 17, page 6 (July 7, 2014) (denying
`
`petition under § 325(d) and reiterating Board’s “broad discretion”). Section 325(d)
`
`states:
`
`(d) MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS.--Notwithstanding sections 135(a),
`251, and 252, and chapter 30, during the pendency of any post-grant
`review under this chapter, if another proceeding or matter involving
`the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the manner
`in which the post-grant review or other proceeding or matter may
`proceed, including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or
`termination of any such matter or proceeding. In determining whether
`to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or
`chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the
`petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior
`art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, a petitioner does not have a right to inter partes review.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Instead, instituting an inter partes review is permissive and
`
`discretionary. See, e.g., Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Co.,
`
`IPR2014-00628, Paper 21, page 6 (Oct. 20, 2014) (citing § 314(a) and explaining
`
`IPR institution is discretionary, not mandatory); CoreLogic, Inc. v. Boundary
`
`Solutions, Inc., IPR2015-00219, Paper 6, pages 11-12 (May 21, 2015) (denying
`
`institution of multiple grounds based on other inter partes proceeding and
`
`explaining institution is permissive). This discretionary authority empowers the
`
`Board to conserve valuable PTO resources and ensure “the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution” of IPR proceedings. 37 C.F.R § 42.1(b). Accordingly, a
`
`petitioner’s regurgitated challenges based on previously-reviewed prior art and
`
`arguments provide an easy, independent reason for the Board to deny the Petition
`
`entirely. Conopco, IPR2014-00628, Paper 21 at 5-6.
`
`The Board has exercised its discretion to deny institution in other less-
`
`egregious cases where the Office had already reviewed the same or substantially
`
`the same prior art or arguments. First, the Board has declined to institute when
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments were considered by the Office in
`
`other ex parte proceedings, including ex parte reexamination or original
`
`prosecution. See, e.g., Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. Advanced Messaging
`
`Techs., Inc., IPR2014-01027, Paper 16, page 2 (Dec. 22, 2014) (declining
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`institution because petition based on substantially the same prior art and arguments
`
`presented during ex parte reexamination); Prism Pharma Co. v. Choongwae
`
`Pharma Corp., IPR2014-00315, Paper 14, pages 12-13 (July 8, 2014) (denying
`
`petition because the same prior art and substantially the same arguments presented
`
`to PTO during original prosecution); Merial Ltd., v. Virbac, IPR2014-01279, Paper
`
`13, at 10, 28 (Jan. 22, 2015) (denying institution on Ground 3 based on arguments
`
`during original prosecution).
`
`Second, the Board has declined to institute IPR when substantially the same
`
`prior art was considered by the Office during other inter partes proceedings. See,
`
`e.g., CoreLogic, Inc., IPR2015-00219, Paper 6 at 10-12 (denying certain grounds
`
`as duplicative of those in other IPRs and stating “Petitioner makes no attempt to
`
`distinguish the grounds asserted against the claims of the ‘352 patent in this case
`
`from those asserted in [the other proceedings].”); Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch
`
`Healthcare Sys., Inc., IPR2014-00436, Paper 17, pages 11-12 (June 19, 2014)
`
`(denying institution based on prior inter partes proceedings because of
`
`“substantial” overlap of “arguments and evidence” between proceedings);
`
`Unilever, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506, Paper
`
`17, pages 6-8 (July 7, 2014) (declining institution because many prior art
`
`references and petition grounds were previously considered and no evidence that
`
`newly cited references not known or available during earlier proceedings).
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Specifically, in cases involving the same or substantially the same evidence
`
`or arguments, the Board looks to the petition itself to account for and rebut the
`
`overlapping, redundant information. Medtronic, IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 at 11-
`
`12. When the petition fails to carry this burden, the Board rejects the petition. Id. at
`
`12 (stating “Nothing in the Petition accounts for this substantial overlap or
`
`persuades us that we should not exercise our discretion under section 325(d).”).
`
`Third, the Board has declined to institute IPR when substantially the same
`
`arguments were considered by the Office during other inter partes proceedings.
`
`See BLD Servs. LLC v. LMK Techs. LLC, IPR2015-00723, Paper 7, pages 9-11
`
`(Aug. 24, 2015) (“After careful review of the petition, we are persuaded that
`
`arguments raised in the petition are ‘substantially the same’ as those previously
`
`presented to the office in the [earlier] proceeding.”); Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive,
`
`Inc., IPR2014-00487, Paper 8, pages 6-7 (Sep. 11, 2014) (denying institution based
`
`on petitioner’s conclusory claim that the grounds were not redundant, petition
`
`presenting same prior art previously presented to Office, and because claim
`
`challenges were “nearly identical” to other proceeding); Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00702 , Paper 13, pages 7-9 (July 24, 2014)
`
`(declining institution of third proceeding because two previous proceedings—
`
`raised by different challengers—already found patent claims unpatentable, and
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`explaining earlier proceedings at later stages would likely render third proceeding
`
`moot).
`
`Even where different prior art has been cited in an IPR proceeding, when
`
`that prior art presents the same or substantially the same teachings as the art
`
`previously considered, the Board denies the petition. See, e.g., Unilever, IPR2014-
`
`00628, Paper 21 at 9 (denying petition based on new prior art because “[a]lthough
`
`Unilever now relies on different references, its argument remains the same….”);
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc., v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., IPR2013-00324, Paper
`
`19, pages 6-7 (Nov. 21, 2013) (concluding that new petition presented the same, or
`
`substantially the same, prior art and arguments because petitioner did not
`
`distinguish any teaching in new prior art from previously-considered references).
`
`As a specific example, the Board denied institution in Unilever’s IPR2014-
`
`00506 case because the second petition: 1) merely challenged the same claims
`
`reviewed in the earlier proceeding; 2) asserted many of the same prior art
`
`references that were reviewed in the earlier proceeding; 3) provided no evidence or
`
`indication that the references that were new in the ’506 proceeding were not
`
`available at the time of the earlier proceeding; 4) alleged 9 grounds (of the total 13)
`
`of unpatentability based on references presented in the earlier proceeding; and (5)
`
`regurgitated several arguments analogous to those raised in the earlier proceeding
`
`while merely reciting new tangential and unhelpful prior art. Paper 17 at 6-8.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Thus, the critical focus in declining institution is whether the art or the
`
`arguments—or both—are the same or substantially the same, not whether the same
`
`party raised the evidence or arguments, or whether the previous proceedings
`
`occurred during prosecution, reexamination, or an inter partes review. This case is
`
`simple because the Petition admittedly relies on duplicative prior art and
`
`arguments. Specifically, Grounds 1-5 are identical to the prior inter partes
`
`reexamination, and the other Ground (Ground 6) includes only substantially the
`
`same, already-presented prior art and arguments, as shown here:
`
`Petition’s IPR Ground
`Ground 1: The MSVM
`Literature1 (Exs. 1013-1015)
`renders obvious claims 1-14 of the
`’543 patent under § 103(a).
`(Petition at 11, 18).
`Ground 2: The MSVM Literature
`in view of Lee (Ex. 1022) renders
`obvious claims 15-23 of the ’543
`patent under § 103(a). (Petition at
`11, 18).
`
`Ground 3: McNally (Ex. 1017)
`anticipates claims 1-14 of the ’543
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Ground
`Ground #1: Claim