UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RUBICON COMMUNICATIONS, LP
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEGO A/S
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01187
`Patent 8,894,066
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’066 PATENT AND CITED REFERENCES ............ 3
`
`III. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ...................................................................... 9
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................16
`
`A. Rubicon’s Constructions ........................................................................18
`
`B. Patent Owner’s Constructions ................................................................20
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“Housing” and “Casing”.................................................................20
`
`“Conformably fit” and “Mating” ....................................................23
`
`V. REASONS WHY INTER PARTES REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE
`INSTITUTED .......................................................................................................25
`
`A. Rubicon Relied on Inadmissible and/or Improper References. ...............25
`
`a. Rubicon did not submit references. ................................................26
`
`b. Rubicon did not authenticate references. ........................................27
`
`c. Rubicon did not show references are “printed publications.” ..........30
`
`d. Rubicon failed to prove references are “prior art.”..........................31
`
`e. Rubicon submitted an improper reference, previously considered by
`
` the Office. .....................................................................................34
`
`B. Even If Rubicon’s Cited References Were Admissible, They Do Not
`Establish a Prima Facie Case of Anticipation and/or Obviousness against
`the Challenged Claims of the ’066 Patent. .............................................36
`
`a. Ground 1 ........................................................................................38
`
`b. Ground 2 ........................................................................................39
`
`c. Ground 3 ........................................................................................43
`
`d. Ground 4 ........................................................................................44
`
`e. Ground 5 ........................................................................................45
`
`f. Ground 6 ........................................................................................47
`
`g. Ground 7 ........................................................................................49
`
`h. Ground 8 ........................................................................................52
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`Rubicon’s letter to LEGO dated June 27, 2016
`Rubicon’s e-mail to the Board sent on July 20, 2016
`Def.’s First Am. Answer, Defenses, and Countercls., LEGO
`System A/S v. Rubicon Commc’ns, LP dba Smallworks and
`Smallworks, LLC, No. 15-823 (D. Conn. Sept. 11, 2015)
`Mot. for Leave to Amend Compl. to Add Additional Party Def.
`and to Extend the Time for Pl. to Further Amend and Join
`Parties, LEGO System A/S v. Rubicon Commc’ns, LP dba
`Smallworks and Smallworks, LLC, No. 15-823 (D. Conn. Oct.
`14, 2015)
`Order Granting [29] Motion to Amend Compl. and to Extend
`Deadlines, LEGO System A/S v. Rubicon Commc’ns, LP dba
`Smallworks and Smallworks, LLC, No. 15-823 (D. Conn. Oct.
`22, 2015)
`Declaration of Elizabeth B. Knight
`Curriculum Vitae of Elizabeth B. Knight
`Pl. LEGO System A/S’s Opening Claim Construction Br.,
`LEGO System A/S v. Rubicon Commc’ns, LP dba Smallworks
`and Smallworks, LLC, No. 15-823 (D. Conn. Mar. 25, 2016)
`Declaration of Andrew M. Riddles
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`3D-Matrix, Ltd. v. Menicon Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00398, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2014) ......................................... 49
`
`ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp.,
`IPR2013-00063, Paper 21 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2013) ......................................... 11
`
`ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp.,
`IPR2013-00063, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012) ........................................ 12
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 17
`
`Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00369, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2015) ....................................... 33
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation,
`IPR2012-00022, Paper 5 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 27, 2012) ......................................... 26
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 18
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 31
`
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 24
`
`Cent. Mfg. Co. v. Casablanca Indus.,
`87 Fed. Appx. 156 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................. 28
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Constellation Techs.,
`IPR2014-00871, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014) ........................................ 31
`
`Cisco Systems v. Constellation Techs.,
`IPR2014-01085, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2015) ........................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Coleman Cable, LLC v. Simon Nicholas Richmond,
`IPR2014-00935, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014) ................................. 12, 13
`
`Conmed Corp. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations,
`IPR2013-00624, Paper 4 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2013) ............................................ 26
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .............................................................. 17
`
`GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00041, Paper 135 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2014) ...................................... 12
`
`Google Inc., v. Simpleair Inc.,
`CBM2014-00054, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2014) ..................................... 21
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966)............................................................................................. 37
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Intertainer, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01456, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. March 6, 2015) ......................................... 35
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 42
`
`InterDigital Communs., Inc. v. United States ITC,
`601 Fed. Appx. 972 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................ 19
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview, LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 53 (P.T.A.B. March 27, 2014) ..................................... 21
`
`Macauto USA v. Baumeister & Ostler GmbH & Co.,
`IPR2012-00004, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 21, 2012) ......................................... 26
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2015-00486, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2015) ......................................... 35
`
`Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
`605 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`.
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 17
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 20
`
`ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company,
`IPR2015-00716, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015) ................................. 31, 32
`
`Smart Modular Technologies Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01373, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. September 16, 2014) ................................ 27
`
`Square, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper 22 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2015) ...................................... 30
`
`Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2015) .................................. 29, 32
`
`Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 30
`
`Terremark North America LLC v. Joao Control & Monitoring
`Systems, LLC,
`IPR2015-01482, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015) ........................................ 15
`
`U.S. v. Bansal,
`663 F.3d 634 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., v. Velocity Patent LLC,
`IPR2015-00276, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. June 1, 2015) ...................................... 41, 45
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 53
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2013) .................................... 37, 41
`
`Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp.,
`IPR2014-01254, Paper 35 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015) .......................................... 11
`
`
`
`.
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Zetec, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., LLC,
`IPR2014-00384, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014) ......................................... 37
`
`Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.,
`IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014) ........................................ 11
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................ 30, 34, 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .................................................................................................... 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .................................................................................................... 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .................................................................................................... 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................ 35, 36, 47
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901 ......................................................................... 27, 28
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 .............................................................................................. 26, 41
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ............................................................................................ 13, 37
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.61 .................................................................................................. 26
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62 .................................................................................................. 27
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ...................................................................................... 15, 25, 26
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................. 16, 20, 30, 34, 37, 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ................................................................................................ 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 .................................................................................................. 2
`
`Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant
`Review Proceedings, and transitional Program for covered
`Business Method Parents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48680 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................... 11
`
`
`
`.
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111 .................................................... 17
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2141 .................................................... 38
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066 .............................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner, LEGO A/S, respectfully submits this Preliminary Response to
`
`Petitioner’s request for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066 (“the ’066
`
`Patent”), which was a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,628,085 (“the ’085
`
`Patent”). The ’085 patent was a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,091,892
`
`(“the ’892 Patent”), which was a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,731,191
`
`(“the ’191 Patent”). The ’066 Patent includes one independent claim and seven
`
`dependent claims, directed to methods of facilitating user preference in creative
`
`design of a controller for manipulating images or symbols on a display. The
`
`inventions of the ’066 and the other patents in the family feature a manual
`
`controller or handheld device that is “configurable,” i.e., it has an outer surface or
`
`casing with a patterned surface portion that is configured to support a set of
`
`building elements. With building elements, a user can customize the manual
`
`controller to an arbitrary shape and ornamental appearance, according to the user’s
`
`own game-inspired, ergonomic, or style preferences. In short, the ’066 Patent
`
`allows the user to play with, for example, LEGO® bricks on the outside of his or
`
`her game pad or cellphone.
`
`Patent Owner’s affiliated company (together “LEGO”) commenced a patent
`
`infringement litigation in the District of Connecticut against the Petitioner
`
`(“Rubicon”) for infringing the ’066 and other patents on May 29, 2015. LEGO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`then amended the complaint to add Rubicon’s affiliated company, Smallworks,
`
`LLC, as a defendant on Oct. 14, 2015.
`
`Rubicon’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No.
`
`8,894,066 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42 (the “Petition”)
`
`alleges that all claims of the ’066 Patent are unpatentable based on eight Grounds.
`
`The Grounds rely on six references — Building Robots, Philo’s Home Page,
`
`Gasperi’s Mindstorms Sensor Input Page, U.S. Patent No 6,443,796, U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 2002/0196250, and Xbox Forums — cited as potential prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). For at least the reasons stated
`
`below, no trial should be instituted on any of the asserted Grounds.
`
`The Board should deny institution of an inter partes review proceeding,
`
`because the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that at least one of
`
`the challenged claims is unpatentable. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108; see also 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314. The Petition is suffused with errors, each of which is independently fatal.
`
`First, Rubicon failed to identify a real party-in-interest, Smallworks, LLC in the
`
`Petition. Second, Rubicon failed to submit, authenticate, and identify proper prior
`
`art references. Third, Rubicon’s cited references, even if admitted despite their
`
`defects, do not anticipate or render obvious the subject matter of the independent
`
`and dependent claims of the ’066 Patent. For at least these reasons, Rubicon’s
`
`
`
`.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for inter partes review should be denied. Patent Owner respectfully
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`requests that the Board deny the Petition.
`
`
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’066 PATENT AND CITED REFERENCES
`
`As noted above, the ’066 Patent is directed to configuring a manual
`
`controller for manipulating images on a display according to a user’s game-
`
`inspired, ergonomic, or style preferences. By using matable attachments, such as
`
`well-known LEGO® building elements, various handles, grips, and other items can
`
`be appended to a manual controller to create a variety of customized shapes and
`
`appearances. See ’066 Patent col.1 l.55–col. 2 l.7. The ’066 Patent’s Detailed
`
`Description of Preferred Embodiments section describes how an exemplary manual
`
`controller can be configured and reshaped using matable building elements.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’066 Patent, shown below, depicts an “exploded” view of a
`
`first exemplary manual controller (10), used for manipulating images and symbols
`
`on a display to which the manual controller is connected by a cable or wirelessly.
`
`The manual controller (10) comprises two distinct parts, a main housing (14),
`
`which includes the electronic components of the controller on the inside and
`
`actuators for manual control on the outside, and a main casing (16), which fits
`
`around the sides of and thereby “receives” the main housing (14). Id. at col. 2
`
`l.66–col. 3 l.17. When the main housing (14) is received into the main casing (16),
`
`
`
`.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`the external surface of the combination of the main housing (14) and main casing
`
`(16) is termed the “exoskeleton” (12). Id. at col. 3 l.5–7. As can be discerned in
`
`Figure 1 below, the casing (16) includes patterned surface portions (20) on its
`
`exterior surface which consist of an array of mutually spaced-apart cylindrical
`
`mating features or bosses (80). Id. at col. 3 l.35–38.
`
`
`
`Id. fig.1.
`
`Due to the projecting patterned surface portions (80) on the casing (16),
`
`separable grip components, such as elements (30) (shown detached) and (32)
`
`(shown attached to the casing), which have corresponding (reverse) mating
`
`features (recesses) to the pattern of cylindrical features (80), can be attached to the
`
`casing (16). By adding the grips, the manual controller in this example is
`
`
`
`.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`customized in a way that makes the device as a whole more convenient to hold. Id.
`
`at col. 3 l.38–45. In alternative embodiments claimed in the other patents in the
`
`family, the main housing (14) itself, rather than or in addition to casing (16), may
`
`include patterned portions on its surface (120), configured to support a set of
`
`building elements that are configurable for mating. See e.g., id. at col. 4 l.6–11,
`
`fig. 3.
`
`As to methods of configuring the manual controller in various ways with
`
`matable building elements by stacking them with respect to one another, the
`
`Specification notes that some building elements may have mating features that
`
`operationally match the patterned surface on both sides (in other words, protruding
`
`cylindrical bosses on one side, and recesses on the other side) and other building
`
`elements may have matching mating features on one side only, with a different
`
`type of mating feature on the other. Id. at col. 4 l.42–50.
`
`Rubicon’s first cited reference, Building Robots, is a book “about building
`
`robots using LEGO bricks and components.” Ex. B11, at xxxi. The “components”
`
`include gears, motors, sensors, and, most importantly, the RCX brick for LEGO
`
`Mindstorms Robotics Invention System (the “RIS”). Id. at xiii–xv. Rubicon
`
`contends the RCX brick shown below is a controller, containing a processor,
`
`
`1 Although Rubicon failed to number the Exhibits in the Petition properly, LEGO
`
`will refer to them as-filed and -cited for simplicity.
`
`
`
`.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`batteries, other electric components, two-part plastic housing, an electric display,
`
`and control buttons. Petition at 15.
`
`
`
`“The [RIS] enables builders to build creations that include the RCX ‘brick’ control
`
`device combined with LEGO play bricks and a multitude of other Lego elements to
`
`make robots and other items.” Id. at 14–15. According to Rubicon, “Building
`
`Robots bears a copyright date of 2002.” Id. at 14. Rubicon writes that this
`
`reference anticipates claims 1–6 and 8 and renders obvious claims 1–8. Id. at 6–7.
`
`For at least the reasons stated below, Building Robots is not a proper printed
`
`publication and does not invalidate the ’066 Patent.
`
`Rubicon’s second cited reference, Philo’s Home Page, is a website that
`
`displays various constructions containing the RCX brick and other LEGO building
`
`elements. See Ex. B2, at 1–4. Examples include Rack and Pinion Steering Car,
`
`“Simon” memory game replica, and robots. Petition at 24–25. Rubicon states the
`
`website was “available at www.philo.home more than one year prior to the earliest
`
`
`
`.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`priority date of the ’066 Patent.” Id. at 24.2 Rubicon claims that the reference
`
`anticipates claims 1–6 and 8 and, in combination with Building Robots, renders
`
`obvious claim 7. Id. at 7. As discussed below, Philo lacks several claimed
`
`elements of the ’066 Patent and does not anticipate nor render obvious the claims.
`
`Rubicon’s third cited reference, Gasperi’s Mindstorms RCX Sensor Input
`
`Page, is a website listing sensors that can be used with the RCX brick. “The RCX
`
`reads Touch, Temperature and Light sensors in the pretty much the same way.”
`
`Ex. B3, at 2. In particular, it discloses “Almost Ultrasonic Motion Sensor” that,
`
`according to Rubicon, “detects the motion of objects near to the RCX.” Id. at 7–8;
`
`see also Petition at 32. Rubicon argues Gasperi, together with Philo’s Home Page
`
`and Building Robots, renders obvious claims 2–3 of the ’066 Patent. Petition at 7.
`
`As with other cited references, Gasperi does not render obvious the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`Rubicon’s fourth cited reference, Shackelford, refers to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,443,796, with a priority date of June 19, 2000. It is titled “Smart blocks” and is
`
`described as relating to “children’s construction sets, and, more particularly, to an
`
`
`2 Rubicon also writes that Philo’s Home Page “provided a link to the Building
`
`Robots book along with an image of the front cover of the book, with the caption
`
`‘Truly inspiring!’” Petition at 32. Rubicon’s exhibit, however, does not show
`
`such image or caption anywhere. See Ex. B2.
`
`
`
`.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`interactive construction and play set that exhibits a virtual intelligence and interacts
`
`with and responds to the player during construction and in continuing play.”
`
`Ex. B4 col. 1 l.4–8. For example, a user may build with (and connect electrical
`
`connectors between) a plurality of play pieces and a housing, having a planar upper
`
`surface. Id. at col. 22 l.16–67. Rubicon argues that Shackelford anticipates claims
`
`1–4, 6, and 8. Petition at 7. For at least the reasons stated below, Shackelford does
`
`not disclose every element of, and thus fails to anticipate, the challenged claims.
`
`Rubicon’s fifth cited reference, Anderson, is a U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2002/0196250 filed on June 20, 2001 and is about “system and method for
`
`generating a virtual model using input from a physical model assembled from
`
`construction elements that are capable of detecting connection with each other.”3
`
`Ex. B5 ¶ 0001. In one embodiment, a controller within a construction element
`
`detects its associated connection with another construction element and
`
`communicates the spatial relationship to an information handling system. Id. ¶¶
`
`0019–0021. Rubicon argues Anderson anticipates claims 1–4, 6, and 8. Petition at
`
`
`3 Rubicon did not initially submit this reference with the Petition and proceeded to
`
`file it on August 5, 2016, nearly two months after filing the Petition, without the
`
`Board’s permission to do so. Patent Owner, by listing here information about this
`
`reference, does not waive any rights or arguments over its inadmissibility, which
`
`are addressed below at Part V(A)(a).
`
`
`
`.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`7. As with other references, the reference fails to disclose every elements of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`Rubicon’s sixth cited reference, Xbox Forums, is claimed to be a screenshot
`
`of a website about “making a LEGO case for [an] Xbox.” Ex. B6, at 1. This
`
`reference seems to discuss various ideas, such as “[putting] lego-guy heads above
`
`the controller ports.” Id. at 5. Exhibit B6 is claimed to be “from 2005.” Petition
`
`at 4. The URL address for the website, however, is not available in the Petition nor
`
`the submitted exhibit. See id. at 45. Rubicon writes that the combination of
`
`Anderson and Xbox Forums renders obvious claim 8 of the ’066 Patent. Id. at 8.
`
`In addition to the defects noted, Xbox Forums fails to establish the prima facie case
`
`of obviousness of claim 8.
`
`
`
`III. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`
`In the Petition, Rubicon failed to properly identify Smallworks, LLC as a
`
`real party-in-interest. In a letter to LEGO dated June 27, 2016 (Ex. 2001) and in an
`
`e-mail to the Board sent on July 20, 2016 (Ex. 2002), Rubicon claims that
`
`Smallworks, LLC is a real party-in-interest, allegedly omitted as a result of a
`
`“clerical mistake.” Rather than explaining how the omission was a clerical mistake,
`
`Rubicon erroneously focuses on arguing about prejudice to LEGO. As a
`
`preliminary matter, Rubicon’s claim that Smallworks, LLC was “known to” LEGO
`
`
`
`.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`is a mischaracterization. LEGO commenced the related action on May 29, 2015
`
`against Rubicon Communications, LP dba SmallWorks, the named Petitioner here.
`
`After the litigation commenced, however, Petitioner purported to change its
`
`corporate structure, evidently dissolving the Defendant entity named in the
`
`Complaint, and created two new entities, Rubicon Communications, LLC and
`
`SmallWorks, LLC. See Def.’s First Am. Answer, Defenses, and Countercls. at ¶ 2,
`
`LEGO System A/S v. Rubicon Commc’ns, LP dba Smallworks and Smallworks,
`
`LLC, No. 15-823 (D. Conn. Sept. 11, 2015) Ex. 2003. Smallworks, LLC also filed
`
`counterclaims against LEGO in that action. Id.
`
`LEGO attempted to gather information about the dissolution of Rubicon
`
`Communications, LP and transfer of assets after the filing of the lawsuit through
`
`discovery, and added Smallworks, LLC as a party. Mot. for Leave to Amend
`
`Compl. to Add Additional Party Def. and to Extend the Time for Pl. to Further
`
`Amend and Join Parties at ¶¶ 4, 6, LEGO System A/S v. Rubicon Commc’ns, LP
`
`dba Smallworks and Smallworks, LLC, No. 15-823 (D. Conn. Oct. 14, 2015) Ex.
`
`2004. The Court granted the motion and ordered “on or before 12/3/2015,
`
`Defendant must produce discovery regarding the corporate transaction(s) . . . .”
`
`Order Granting [29] Motion to Amend Compl. and to Extend Deadlines, LEGO
`
`System A/S v. Rubicon Commc’ns, LP dba Smallworks and Smallworks, LLC, No.
`
`15-823 (D. Conn. Oct. 22, 2015) Ex. 2005. Despite the order, Rubicon resisted,
`
`
`
`.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`and continues to resist, LEGO’s discovery efforts and produced only a limited
`
`number of mostly publicly available documents without disclosing a privilege log
`
`despite repeated attempts. As a result, Rubicon’s corporate transactions and
`
`identities remain the subject of dispute between the parties.
`
`In light of Petitioner’s casual relationship with corporate structure and assets
`
`during a litigation, any claim that the omission of Smallworks, LLC as a real-party-
`
`in-interest was a clerical mistake is suspect. While a petitioner may correct “a
`
`clerical or typographical mistake in the petition” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c),
`
`Rubicon did not adequately demonstrate how the omission was merely a “clerical
`
`mistake.” Indeed, it provides no explanation at all.
`
`A petition for an inter partes review must identify all real parties-in-interest
`
`and satisfy the threshold issue under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Zoll Lifecor Corp. v.
`
`Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 at 7–8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20,
`
`2014). Failing to do so renders the petition incomplete under 37 C.F.R. § 42.106
`
`and warrants a denial of institution. See Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp., IPR2014-01254,
`
`Paper 35 at 15 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015). Although a petitioner may correct a
`
`clerical or typographical mistake, it cannot retroactively fix other types of mistakes.
`
`“There is no provision allowing for the correction of a mistake that is not clerical
`
`or typographical in nature without a change in filing date.” Changes to Implement
`
`Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional
`
`
`
`.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Program for Covered Business Method Parents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48680, 48699 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012); see also ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp., IPR2013-00063, Paper 21,
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2013) (permitting correction of an incorrectly uploaded petition).
`
`The petitioner must do more than simply assert that it made a clerical mistake.
`
`Instead, it must provide “a detailed account under oath of the alleged ‘clerical error’
`
`including how and why it occurred, based upon actual knowledge of the person or
`
`persons involved[, including] an affidavit or declaration from the attorney who
`
`supervised [and] the person who [made the error,]” along with any other
`
`corroborating evidence. ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp., IPR2013-00063, Paper 14
`
`at 5 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012).
`
`Failing to identify all real parties-in-interest is a substantive defect that does
`
`not generally result from a clerical mistake. “The lack of a rule that allows for the
`
`correction to the identification of the RPIs without changing the filing date is
`
`consistent with the contemplated importance of identifying all the RPIs in the
`
`petitions.” GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., IPR2014-00041,
`
`Paper 135 at 23–24 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2014) (citing Chicago R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v.
`
`Schendel, 270 U.S. 611, 620 (1926)). Only in an extraordinary circumstance, can
`
`such a substantive defect be attributed to a clerical mistake. See Coleman Cable,
`
`LLC v. Simon Nicholas Richmond, IPR2014-00935, Paper 12 (Aug. 28, 2014). In
`
`Coleman, the Board allowed the petitioners to add new real parties-in-interest
`
`
`
`.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,894,066
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`without changing the filing date, because (1) counsel for the petitioners had
`
`obtained powers of attorney from the omitted parties prior to the filing of the
`
`petition, (2) the omitted parties were identified as petitioners in related co-pending
`
`IPR proceedings, and (3) the patent owner there did not oppose the motion to
`
`correct. Id. at 5. These facts are distinguishable here.
`
`Unlike the patent owner in Coleman, LEGO opposes Rubicon’s unsupported
`
`attempt to correct. In addition, Rubicon did not provide “[a] full statement of the
`
`reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance
`
`of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and
`
`precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a). Rubicon offered zero evidence to explain how
`
`Smallworks, LLC was omitted by a clerical mistake. Instead, it simply wrote in its
`
`e-mail to the Board “[Smallworks, LLC] was known to counsel of both parties
`
`before the filing date of the Petition, the party was identified in the Petition in the
`
`section following the real party-in-interest section, and omission of the party was
`
`clearly a clerical error and was not done in any way to hide such party from the
`
`Patent Owner.” Ex. 2002. The fact that Rubicon was aware of Smallworks, LLC
`
`does not “clearly” es