UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; and
`
`SK HYNIX, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672) IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542) IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Notice addresses issues that are substantially similar across proceedings and
`is provided pursuant to the Board’s instruction that it could be provided “in one
`document.” Order – Conduct of the Proceeding (Paper 14), dated July 1, 2016.
`1
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; and
`
`SK HYNIX, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672) IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542) IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Notice addresses issues that are substantially similar across proceedings and
`is provided pursuant to the Board’s instruction that it could be provided “in one
`document.” Order – Conduct of the Proceeding (Paper 14), dated July 1, 2016.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672) IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542) IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order regarding the Conduct of the Proceeding in
`
`the above captioned cases, Patent Owner Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC (“Elm”)
`
`submits this Motion regarding the appropriate claim construction standard pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.20. As fully explained in Elm’s Notice of Patent Expiration, filed
`
`contemporaneously with this motion, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,193,239 (IPR2016-00388;
`
`IPR2016-00393); 8,410,617 (IPR2016-00394); 8,629,542 (IPR2016-00390);
`
`8,653,672 (IPR2016-00386); 8,796,862 (IPR2016-00391); and 8,841,778
`
`(IPR2016-00387) will expire before the deadline for issuing final written decisions
`
`in the relevant cases. Thus, in the seven proceedings pertaining to these six patents,
`
`the Board should apply the claim construction standard applied by United States
`
`District Courts under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
`
`time of the invention). U.S. Patent Nos. 7,504,732 (IPR2016-00395) and 8,035,233
`
`(IPR2016-00389) will not expire prior to the respective deadlines for final written
`
`decisions in the proceedings relating to those patents. Thus, in these two
`
`proceedings, the Board should apply the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672) IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542) IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`The Board applies the Phillips standard to expired claims. See In re Rambus,
`
`694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). For the relevant patents, the claims will expire
`
`before the deadline for a final written decision. There is no reason that these
`
`expired claims should be treated any differently than claims expiring prior to
`
`institution. Thus, the Phillips standard should apply.
`
`The Phillips standard applies to expired patents because they do not present
`
`the same impetus requiring review under the broadest reasonable interpretation as
`
`patents that will remain in effect after the final written decision. The ability to
`
`amend the claim language during an IPR mandates that the Board apply the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard —the standard applied by patent
`
`examiners addressing a patent application in the first instance—to ensure the scope
`
`of the patent remains properly constrained. For expired patents, however, the
`
`Board analyzes claims under the Phillips standard in part because the patent owner
`
`does not have the ability to amend claims. Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper,
`
`IPR2014-00157, Paper 17, at 2 (PTAB June 23, 2014) (“[O]ur final written
`
`decision in this proceeding will in all likelihood issue after the ’207 patent expires.
`
`. . . Therefore, the principles set forth by the court in [Phillips] should be applied
`
`because the expired claims are not subject to amendment.”). Without the ability to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672) IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542) IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`amend the language of the claims, the need to construe the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation is unnecessary, and the district court standard applies.
`
`The same logic applies to patents that will expire prior to the final written
`
`decision. After final written decision, the patent will be expired—regardless of
`
`whether the claims were amended during the inter partes proceeding. These newly
`
`expired patents will have the same impact on competition as patents that expired
`
`prior to institution. As such, the Phillips standard—not the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation—is properly applied to the patents that will expire prior to the
`
`deadline for a final written decision.
`
`Further, application of the Phillips standard comports with the Board’s
`
`practice in prior cases. For example, in Toyota Motor Corp. v. Leroy G.
`
`Hagenbuch, the patent at issue expired “subsequent to the institution of trial,” but
`
`prior to the final written decision. IPR2013-00483, Paper 37, at 5 (PTAB Dec. 5,
`
`2014). Addressing the newly expired patent claims at issue, the Board stated: “We
`
`review the expired patent claims according to the standard applied by the district
`
`courts.” Id. Thus, the Phillips standard has previously been applied in situations
`
`factually indistinguishable from this case. See also Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP
`
`Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper 39, at 7 (PTAB May 20, 2015) (applying
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672) IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542) IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`the Phillips standard on final decision despite previously applying the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in the institution decision); Square, Paper 17, at 2.
`
`Finally, application of the Phillips standard to patents that will expire prior
`
`to the final written decision is not in conflict with Petitioner’s argument in the
`
`petition. Petitioner argues that “[a]fter expiration, Petitioner believes the claims
`
`should be construed according to Phillips . . . .” See, e.g., IPR2016-00386, Paper 1,
`
`n.6. Because the relevant patents will expire before a final written decision is due,
`
`Elm’s position is in agreement with that of Petitioners—namely that the Phillips
`
`standard should apply to the expired patents when the Board drafts its final written
`
`decision.
`
`The Board requested briefing on this issue because Elm did not address the
`
`claim construction standard in its preliminary response. As Elm is in agreement
`
`with Petitioner’s position, and the Board has previously applied Phillips in similar
`
`circumstances, Elm respectfully requests that the Board construe any necessary
`
`claim terms for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,193,239; 8,410,617; 8,629,542; 8,653,672;
`
`8,796,862; and 8,841,778 under the Phillips standard, and that the Board construe
`
`any claim terms for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,504,732 and 8,035,233 under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672) IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542) IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: July 18, 2016
`
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/Cyrus A. Morton
`Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672) IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542) IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 18, 2016, the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC’s MOTION UNDER 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.20 REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION was served
`
`electronically via email in its entirety on the following counsel of record for the
`
`Petitioners:
`
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel: 202-551-1700
`Fax: 202-551-1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-ELM-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`John Kappos (Reg. No. 37,861)
`O’MELVENY & MEYERS LLP
`610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Tel: 949-823-6900
`Fax: 949-823-6994
`E-mail: jkappos@omm.com
` PTABMICRONELM@omm.com
`
`
`Jason A. Engel (Reg. No. 51,654)
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Tel: 312-807-4236
`Fax: 312-827-8145
`Email: jason.engel.PTAB@klgates.com
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672) IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542) IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239) IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`Dated: July 18, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`
`
`By: /s/Cyrus A. Morton
` Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
` Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`8
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
