`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; and
`SK HYNIX INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Cases
`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)
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`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 dated July 1, Petitioner submits this response
`
`to Patent Owner Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC’s (“Patent Owner”) Motion regarding
`
`the appropriate claim construction standard to be applied in the above-captioned
`
`proceedings.1
`
`Petitioner agrees with Patent Owner that the Board should apply the claim
`
`construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) in the following seven proceedings because the challenged patents will all
`
`expire on April 4, 2017, before the deadline for issuing final written decisions:
`
`IPR2016-00388 (U.S. 7,193,239); IPR2016-00393 (U.S. 7,193,239); IPR2016-
`
`00394 (U.S.8,410,617); IPR2016-00390 (U.S. 8,629,542); IPR2016-00386 (U.S.
`
`8,653,672);
`
`IPR2016-00391
`
`(U.S. 8,796,862); and
`
`IPR2016-00387
`
`(U.S.
`
`8,841,778).
`
`With respect to the remaining two proceedings, the information on the faces
`
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,504,732 (“the ’732 Patent”) (IPR2016-00395) and 8,035,233
`
`(“the ’233 Patent”) (IPR2016-00389) indicates expiration dates of January 13,
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Board’s Order dated July 1, 2016 (pages 4-5), Petitioner submits
`
`this Response as a common document in each proceeding using a caption
`
`identifying each proceeding in which the common document is filed.
`
`
`
`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)
`
`2019, and December 30, 2018, respectively. Based on these facts alone, Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard of claim
`
`construction applies in these two proceedings. The above-captioned proceedings,
`
`however, present a unique and complex situation.
`
`First, applying different standards in these proceedings for expiring versus
`
`non-expiring patents in the same patent family could result in a scenario where a
`
`common term found in claims of two different patents sharing an identical
`
`specification could be accorded different meanings. This outcome would present
`
`logistical issues throughout the proceedings. Accordingly, to ensure efficient and
`
`consistent resolutions, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board apply both the
`
`Phillips and BRI claim construction standards to the ’732 and ’233 patents and
`
`determine an outcome on the basis of both standards. This approach would
`
`substantially simplify appeal and post-appeal proceedings, if any.
`
`Moreover, the ’732 and ’233 Patents will likely expire prior to the resolution
`
`of any appeal to the Federal Circuit (or remand therefrom). In this scenario, even
`
`if the Board applied the BRI standard during the initial IPR proceedings before the
`
`Board, the Federal Circuit would apply the Phillips standard. See Facebook Inc. v.
`
`Pragmatus AV LLC, 582 Fed.Appx. 864 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying the Phillips
`
`
`
`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)
`
`standard to patents that expired after the Board’s decision, but during appeal). The
`
`unique facts at hand, which involve a mix of expiring and non-expiring patents
`
`from the same family, warrant an application of both the Phillips and BRI
`
`standards for the non-expiring patents to simplify issues during any appeal or
`
`remand.
`
`Finally, Petitioner asserts that the ’732 and ’233 Patents are invalid under the
`
`doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.2 A claim is invalid
`
`under the doctrine of non-statutory obviousness double patenting if it is “an
`
`‘obvious’ modification of the same invention” claimed in an earlier expiring
`
`
`2 Exhibit 1064 (IPR2016-00389) explains that the challenged claims of the ’233
`
`Patent are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting in view of at least U.S.
`
`7,193,239, which Patent Owner admits expires on April 4, 2017 (see IPR2016-
`
`00388, Paper No. 19). Exhibit 1065 (IPR2016-00395) explains that the challenged
`
`claims of the ’732 Patent are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting in view
`
`of at least U.S. 8,796,862, U.S. 8,653,672, U.S. 8,841,778, U.S. 7,193,239, or U.S.
`
`8,410,617, which Patent Owner admits expire on April 4, 2017 (see IPR2016-
`
`00391, Paper No. 22; IPR2016-00386, Paper No. 23; IPR2016-00387, Paper No.
`
`21; IPR2016-00388, Paper No. 19; IPR2016-00394, Paper No. 22).
`
`
`
`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)
`
`patent. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Abbvie Inc. v.
`
`Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 1379
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014). Patent Owner still could submit terminal disclaimers during the
`
`pendency of these proceedings, in which case these two patents would expire on
`
`April 4, 2017. In that case, the Board should apply the claim construction standard
`
`set forth in Phillips to the’732 and ’233 Patents.
`
`Petitioner therefore respectfully requests that the Board construe the claims
`
`of the ’732 and ’233 patents under both the Phillips standard and the BRI standard.
`
`Under either standard, Petitioner believes the challenged claims are invalid in view
`
`of the prior art grounds adopted by the Board. See IPR2016-00395, Paper 4 at 9
`
`n.5; IPR2016-00389, Paper 4 at 13 n.5.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 27, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi
`Reg. No. 46,224
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 27, 2016, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing to be served electronically on the following counsel of record for Patent
`
`Owner at the following email addresses:
`
`Cyrus A. Morton, Reg. No. 44,954
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`Kelsey J. Thorkelson, Reg. No. 73,130
`kthorkelson@robinskaplan.com
`Samuel L. Walling (Pro Hac Vice)
`SWalling@RobinsKaplan.com
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
`Tel.: (612) 349-8500
`Fax: (612) 339-4181
`
`James Carmichael, Reg. No. 45,306
`jim@carmichaelip.com
`CARMICHAEL IP, PLLC
`8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 13th Floor
`Tysons Corner, VA 22182
`Tel.: (703) 646-9250
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
