Paper 26
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 11, 2016
`
`
`
`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.
`____________
`
`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)
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Motion Regarding Claim Construction
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are substantially similar in the
`proceedings. We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in
`each proceeding.
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`
`IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Micron Technology, Inc.; and SK
`
`Hynix Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) filed Petitions requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims in various patents owned by Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”). See, e.g., IPR2016-00386, Paper 1 (“Pet.”).2 In its
`
`Petitions, Petitioner raised the possibility that the challenged patents may
`
`expire during the inter partes reviews. Pet. 9, n.6 (“The ’672 patent may
`
`expire during this proceeding.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response
`
`to each Petition but did not address this issue. See generally Paper 10. After
`
`considering the Petitions and Preliminary Responses, we instituted an inter
`
`partes review for each challenged patent. Paper 14.
`
`The claim construction standard to be applied during these inter
`
`partes reviews depends upon whether the patent is expired or unexpired. In
`
`an inter partes review, the Board interprets claims in an unexpired patent
`
`using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which [the claims] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (holding
`
`that 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) “represents a reasonable exercise of the
`
`rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office”). For
`
`claims of an expired patent, however, the Board’s claim construction
`
`analysis is similar to that of a district court. See In re Rambus, 694 F.3d 42,
`
`46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this context, claim terms “are generally given their
`
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, paper numbers refer to IPR2016-00386.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary
`
`IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`
`
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“the district
`
`court type construction” or “the Phillips standard”).
`
`Moreover, when a patent expires during an inter partes review, the
`
`Board has applied the district court-type construction. See, e.g., Square, Inc.
`
`v. J. Carl Cooper, Case IPR2014-00157, slip. op. at 2 (PTAB June 23, 2014)
`
`(Paper 17) (“[O]ur final written decision in this proceeding will in all
`
`likelihood issue after the [challenged] patent expires. . . . Therefore, the
`
`principles set forth by the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . should be applied because the expired
`
`claims are not subject to amendment.”); see also Toyota Motor Corp. v.
`
`Leroy G. Hagenbuch, Case IPR2013-00483, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Dec. 5,
`
`2014) (Paper 37) (applying, in a final written decision, district court-type
`
`claim construction to terms in a patent that expired subsequent to
`
`institution). Furthermore, a recent rule change, which does not apply to
`
`these proceedings, permits “a party . . . to request a district court-type claim
`
`construction approach to be applied if a party certifies that the involved
`
`patent will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of Filing
`
`Date Accorded to Petition.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (Apr. 1, 2016).
`
`To give both parties an opportunity to be heard under the proper claim
`
`construction standard to be applied to the claims in the challenged patents,
`
`we ordered Patent Owner to file in each proceeding a Notice of Patent
`
`Expiration certifying whether each of the challenged patents will or will not
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`expire before the deadline for issuing final written decisions in each case—
`
`IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`
`
`
`no more than one year from the date of institution of each respective inter
`
`partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Paper 18, 3–4. Each party was given
`
`an opportunity to provide briefing as to which claim construction standard
`
`should be applied. Id. at 4.
`
`In due course, Patent Owner filed the required Notices for each patent
`
`(see, e.g., Paper 23) and a motion regarding claim construction in each
`
`proceeding (Paper 22, “Patent Owner Motion” or “PO Mot.”), to which
`
`Petitioner filed a response in each proceeding (Paper 25, “Petitioner
`
`Response” or “Pet. Resp.”). Patent Owner filed replies in two
`
`proceedings—IPR2016-00389 and IPR2016-00395. See, e.g., IPR2016-
`
`00389, Paper 26 (“Patent Owner Reply” or “PO Reply”).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Patent Owner certified that six challenged patents would expire before
`
`the deadline for issuing final written decisions in seven inter partes reviews.
`
`See, e.g., Paper 23. Specifically, Patent Owner certified that (i) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,193,239 challenged in IPR2016-00388 and IPR2016-00393, (ii) U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,410,617 challenged in IPR2016-00394, (iii) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,629,542 challenged in IPR2016-00390, (iv) U.S. Patent No. 8,653,672
`
`challenged in IPR2016-00386, (v) U.S. Patent No. 8,796,862 challenged in
`
`IPR2016-00391, and (vi) U.S. Patent No. 8,841,778 challenged in
`
`IPR2016-00387 would expire before the deadline for issuing final written
`
`decisions in the respective reviews. Id. Patent Owner and Petitioner agree
`
`that the challenged claims in these patents should be construed according to
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`a district court-type construction under Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. See
`
`IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`
`
`
`PO Mot. 5; Pet. Resp. 1.
`
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,504,732 (the ’732 patent) challenged in
`
`IPR2016-00395 and U.S. Patent No. 8,035,233 (the ’233 patent) challenged
`
`in IPR2016-00389, Patent Owner certified that the challenged claims would
`
`not expire prior to the deadlines for the respective final written decisions.
`
`PO Mot. 2. Patent Owner contends that the broadest reasonable construction
`
`standard should be used for the claim terms in these patents. Id. at 5.
`
`By contrast, Petitioner urges that, due to the particular circumstances
`
`of these cases—“the mix of expiring and non-expiring patents from the same
`
`family,” we should apply both the broadest reasonable construction and the
`
`Phillips standard to the challenged claims in each of the ’732 patent and the
`
`’233 patent and “determine an outcome on the basis of both standards” to
`
`“ensure efficient and consistent proceedings.” Pet. Resp. 2, 3. Petitioner
`
`reasons that applying different claim construction standards to terms in
`
`patents “in the same patent family could result in a scenario where a
`
`common term found in the claims of two different patents sharing an
`
`identical specification could be accorded different meanings,” which would
`
`“present logistical issues throughout the proceedings.” Id.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner indicates its proposed approach of according
`
`both the Phillips and broadest reasonable construction standards to the ’732
`
`and ’233 patents would “substantially simplify appeal and post-appeal
`
`proceedings, if any.” Id. According to Petitioner, because these two patents
`
`“would likely expire prior to the resolution of any appeal to the Federal
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`Circuit (or remand therefrom),” the Federal Circuit would apply the Phillips
`
`IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`
`
`
`standard. Id. at 2–3 (citing Facebook Inc. v. Pragmatus AV LLC, 582 Fed.
`
`Appx. 864 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential)).
`
`In reply, Patent Owner urges that only the broadest reasonable
`
`construction be applied to terms in the ’732 patent and the ’233 patent,
`
`which will not expire prior to the deadlines for the final written decisions
`
`addressing those challenged patents. PO Reply 1–3. Patent Owner
`
`highlights well-known, sound policy reasons for applying broadest
`
`reasonable construction to terms in an unexpired patents and observes
`
`Petitioner’s proposed dual construction approach is redundant and
`
`needlessly consumes resources. Id. at 1–2. Moreover, Patent Owner
`
`observes that, in Facebook (a case relied on by Petitioner), when a patent
`
`expired after the Board decision, the Federal Circuit construed claim terms
`
`under district court-type construction during appeal. Facebook, 582 Fed.
`
`Appx. at 866; PO Reply 2. Notably, the Federal Circuit did not criticize the
`
`Board for applying the broadest reasonable construction in its decision
`
`rendered before the patent expired. Facebook, 582 Fed. Appx. at 866.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner. The broadest reasonable construction
`
`must be applied to terms in the ’732 patent and the ’233 patent, which do not
`
`expire before the deadline for issuing a final written decision. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144
`
`(2016). To apply a second claim construction approach—district-court type
`
`construction—during the inter partes review is unnecessary and inefficient.
`
`Any simplification of appeal and post-appeal proceedings is speculative at
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`best. Moreover, Petitioner does not address the increased complexity of
`
`IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`
`
`
`applying two claim construction standards during an inter partes review.
`
`Furthermore, [i]n many cases, the claim construction will be the same
`
`under the Phillips and [broadest reasonable construction] standards.” In re
`
`CSB-Sys. Int’l, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1832, slip op. 9 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9,
`
`2016) (holding that the Board should apply a district court-type claim
`
`construction approach, rather than the broadest reasonable construction,
`
`when a patent expires during reexamination); see, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1302 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that the
`
`claim term under review had the same construction under a district court-
`
`type claim construction approach and the broadest reasonable construction);
`
`Facebook, 582 F. App’x at 869 (“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a
`
`claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction of a term
`
`under the Phillips standard.”).
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that a district court-type claim construction approach
`
`following the principles set forth by the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) shall be applied to claim terms in the
`
`patents challenged in IPR2016-00386, IPR2016-00387, IPR2016-00388,
`
`IPR2016-00390, IPR2016-00391, IPR2016-00393, and IPR2016-00394;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the broadest reasonable construction shall
`
`be applied to claim terms in the patents challenged in IPR2016-00389 and
`
`IPR2016-00395; and
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`
`IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this decision be entered in IPR2016-
`
`00386, IPR2016-00387, IPR2016-00388, IPR2016-00389, IPR2016-00390,
`
`IPR2016-00391, IPR2016-00393, IPR2016-00394, and IPR2016-00395.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2016-00387 (Patent 8,841,778)
`IPR2016-00389 (Patent 8,035,233)
`IPR2016-00391 (Patent 8,796,862)
`IPR2016-00394 (Patent 8,410,617)
`
`IPR2016-00386 (Patent 8,653,672)
`IPR2016-00388 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00390 (Patent 8,629,542)
`IPR2016-00393 (Patent 7,193,239)
`IPR2016-00395 (Patent 7,504,732)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jason Engel
`K&L Gates LLP
`jason.engel.PTAB@klgates.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`PH-Samsung-ELM-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`John Kappos
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP,
`jkappos@omm.com
`
`9
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Kelsey Thorkelson
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`camorton@rkmc.com
`kthorkelson@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`James Carmichael
`CARMICHAEL IP, PLLC
`jim@carmichaelip.com