UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`NU MARK LLC
`The Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`Patent Owner
`
`________________________
`
`Case IPR. No. Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742
`Title: AEROSOL ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE
`________________________
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742 Under
`U.S.C §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2 
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .......... 2 
`
`2.1.  Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 2 
`
`2.2.  Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............. 2 
`
`2.3.  Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................. 3 
`
`2.4.  Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................. 4 
`
`2.5.  Fee for Inter Partes Review ................................................................ 13 
`
`2.6.  Proof of Service ................................................................................... 13 
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`(§ 42.104(B)) ................................................................................................. 13 
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE 742 PATENT ............................................................ 16 
`
`PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY ......................................................... 19 
`
`5.1.  First Office Action and Response ....................................................... 19 
`
`5.2.  Examiner Interview ............................................................................. 21 
`
`5.3.  Notice of Allowance ............................................................................ 21 
`
`6. 
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 21 
`
`6.1.  Applicable Law ................................................................................... 21 
`
`6.2.  Construction of Claim Terms .............................................................. 22 
`
`6.2.1.  “frame” (claims 2, 3) ................................................................. 22 
`6.2.2.  “substantially” (claims 2, 3) ...................................................... 23 
`6.2.3.  “porous component” (claims 1, 2, 9, 10) .................................. 24 
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................. 24 
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................ 25 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`8.1.  UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,155,268 (“Takeuchi”) ............... 25 
`
`8.2.  UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 2,057,353
`(“WHITTEMORE”) ............................................................................ 28 
`
`8.3.  UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 4,947,874 (“BROOKS”) ............. 30 
`
`9. 
`
`GROUND #1: CLAIMS 2 AND 3 OF THE 742 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER TAKEUCHI IN VIEW OF
`WHITTEMORE ............................................................................................ 32 
`
`9.1. 
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art to combine Takeuchi with Whittemore .......................................... 33 
`
`9.2.  Claim 2 is obvious over Takeuchi in view of Whittemore ................. 41 
`
`9.2.1.  Claim 2: [2.P] An electronic cigarette, comprising: ................. 41 
`9.2.2.  [2.1] a battery assembly and an atomizer assembly within
`a housing with the battery assembly electrically
`connected to the atomizer assembly; ........................................ 41 
`9.2.3.  [2.2] a liquid storage component in the housing; ..................... 46 
`9.2.4.  [2.3] with the housing having one or more through-air-
`inlets; 47 
`9.2.5.  [2.4] the atomizer assembly including a porous
`component supported by a frame having a run-through
`hole;
`48 
`9.2.6.  [2.5] a heating wire wound on a part of the porous
`component in the path of air flowing through the run-
`through hole; and ...................................................................... 54 
`9.2.7.  [2.6] the porous component substantially surrounded by
`the liquid storage component. ................................................... 58 
`9.3.  Claim 3 is obvious over Takeuchi in view of Whittemore ................. 60 
`
`9.3.1.  Claim 3: [3.P] An electronic cigarette comprising: .................. 60 
`9.3.2.  [3.1] a battery assembly and an atomizer assembly within
`a housing with the battery assembly electrically
`connected to the atomizer assembly; ........................................ 60 
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`9.3.3.  [3.2] with the housing having one or more through-air-
`inlets and an outlet; ................................................................... 60 
`9.3.4.  [3.3] the atomizer assembly includes a frame having a
`run through hole, and a porous component between the
`frame and the outlet; ................................................................. 62 
`9.3.5.  [3.4] a heating wire wound on a part of the porous
`component which is substantially aligned with the run-
`through hole; and ...................................................................... 67 
`9.3.6.  [3.5] with the porous component in contact with a liquid
`supply in the housing. ............................................................... 71 
`10.  GROUND #2: CLAIMS 2 AND 3 OF THE 742 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER BROOKS IN VIEW OF
`TAKEUCHI ................................................................................................... 73 
`
`10.1.  It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art to combine Brooks with Takeuchi ................................................. 73 
`
`10.2.  Claim 2 is obvious over Brooks In View of Takeuchi ........................ 76 
`
`Claim 2: [2.P] An electronic cigarette,
`10.2.1. 
`comprising: ................................................................................ 76 
`10.2.2. 
`[2.1] a battery assembly and an atomizer
`assembly within a housing with the battery assembly
`electrically connected to the atomizer assembly; ..................... 76 
`10.2.3. 
`[2.2] a liquid storage component in the housing; ....... 80 
`10.2.4. 
`[2.3] with the housing having one or more
`through-air-inlets;...................................................................... 82 
`10.2.5. 
`[2.4] the atomizer assembly including a porous
`component supported by a frame having a run-through
`hole;
`83 
`10.2.6. 
`[2.5] a heating wire wound on a part of the
`porous component in the path of air flowing through the
`run-through hole; and ................................................................ 84 
`10.2.7. 
`[2.6] the porous component substantially
`surrounded by the liquid storage component. ........................... 88 
`10.3.  Claim 3 is obvious over Brooks in view of Takeuchi ......................... 90 
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`10.3.1. 
`Claim 3: [3.P] An electronic cigarette
`comprising: ................................................................................ 90 
`10.3.2. 
`[3.1] a battery assembly and an atomizer
`assembly within a housing with the battery assembly
`electrically connected to the atomizer assembly; ..................... 90 
`10.3.3. 
`[3.2] with the housing having one or more
`through-air-inlets and an outlet; ................................................ 90 
`10.3.4. 
`[3.3] the atomizer assembly includes a frame
`having a run through hole, and a porous component
`between the frame and the outlet; ............................................. 91 
`10.3.5. 
`[3.4] a heating wire wound on a part of the
`porous component which is substantially aligned with the
`run-through hole; and ................................................................ 94 
`10.3.6. 
`[3.5] with the porous component in contact with
`a liquid supply in the housing. .................................................. 96 
`11.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 98 
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Description
`
`Ex.1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742 (“the 742 Patent”)
`
`Ex.1002 Excerpts of the prosecution history for U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`Ex.1003 Declaration of John M. Collins, Ph.D. (“Collins Decl.”)
`
`Ex.1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,155,268 (“Takeuchi”)
`
`Ex.1005 U.S. Patent No. 2,057,353 (“Whittemore”)
`
`Ex.1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,947,874 (“Brooks”)
`Ex.1007 Docket entry #65 from Fontem Ventures, B.V., et al. v. NJOY, Inc., et
`al., 2:14-cv-01645 (C.D. Cal.) (“Rulings on Claim Construction”)
`
`Ex.1008 U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0093977 A1 (“Pellizzari I”)
`
`Ex.1009 U.S. Patent No. 7,059,307 (“Pellizzari II”)
`
`Ex.1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,894,841 (“Voges”)
`
`Ex.1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,743,251 (“Howell”)
`
`Ex.1012 U.S. Patent No. 2,461,664 (“Smith”)
`
`Ex.1013 U.S. Patent No. 3,234,357 (“Eberhard”)
`
`Ex.1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,745,985 (“Ghosh”)
`
`Ex.1015 U.S. Patent No. 4,676,237 (“Wood”)
`
`Ex.1016 U.S. Patent No. 4,945,448 (“Bremenour”)
`
`Ex.1017 U.S. Patent No. 2,442,004 (“Hayward-Butt”)
`
`Ex.1018 U.S. Patent No. 3,200,819 (“Gilbert”)
`
`Ex.1019 U.S. Patent No. 6,501,052 (“Cox”)
`
`Ex.1020 U.S. Patent No. 6,491,233 (“Nichols”)
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Nu Mark LLC (“Petitioner”), in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311-319 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100, hereby requests inter partes review of claims 2 and 3 of
`
`United States Patent No. 8,365,742, titled “Aerosol Electronic Cigarette” (Ex.1001,
`
`“the 742 Patent”). According to USPTO records, the 742 Patent is assigned to
`
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (“Fontem” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`2.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`2.1. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the 742 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the
`
`challenged claims of the 742 Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`2.2. Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner
`
`provides the following designation of Lead and Back-Up counsel.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser
`Registration No. 55,721
`(elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`T: 212-310-8022; F: 212-310-8007
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Adrian Percer
`Registration No. 46,986
`(adrian.percer@weil.com)
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Registration No. 73,604
`(jason.lang@weil.com)
`
`Brian C. Chang
`Registration No. 74,301
`(brian.chang@weil.com)
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`T: 650-802-3124; F: 650-802-3100
`
`Anish Desai
`Registration No. 73,760
`(anish.desai@weil.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005-3314
`T: 202-682-7103; F: 202-812-6186
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney for the Petitioner is
`
`attached.
`
`2.3. Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`For purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) only,
`
`Petitioner, Nu Mark LLC, identifies the real-parties-in-interest as Nu Mark LLC
`
`and Altria Client Services LLC. Nu Mark LLC further discloses that it is an
`
`indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., and states that under the
`
`governing standard Altria Group, Inc. is not a real-party-in-interest. See Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg., Vol. 77, No. 157 (2012) at 48759-60. Altria
`
`Group, Inc. nevertheless agrees to be bound by any final written decision in these
`
`proceedings. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`2.4. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`Fontem has asserted the 742 Patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,899,239 (“the
`
`239 Patent”), 8,393,331 (“the 331 Patent”), 8,490,628 (“the 628 Patent”),
`
`8,893,726 (“the 726 Patent”), 8,689,805 (“the 805 Patent”), 8,375,957 (“the 957
`
`Patent”), and 8,863,752 (“the 752 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”),
`
`against Petitioner in a co-pending litigation, Fontem Ventures B.V. et al vNU
`
`MARK LLC., 2:16-cv-02291 (C.D. Cal.) (“Co-Pending Litigation”). On June 22,
`
`2016, Fontem filed a second complaint asserting U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,364,027,
`
`9,326,549, 9,326,549, 9,326,550, 9,326,551, 9,339,062, 9,370,205, and 9,320,300,
`
`all of which are related to one or more of the Asserted Patents. See Fontem
`
`Ventures B.V. et al v Nu Mark LLC., 2:16-cv-04537 (C.D. Cal.). Fontem has also
`
`asserted one or more of the Asserted Patents or patents related to the Asserted
`
`Patents in the following actions:
`
`a. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. NJOY, Inc.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1645 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`b. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. LOEC, Inc.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1648 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`c. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. CB
`
`Distributors, Inc. and DR Distributors, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1649 (C.D.
`
`Cal.);
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`d. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Vapor Corp.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1650 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`e. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. FIN Branding
`
`Group, LLC and Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation, Civil Action No.
`
`2:14-cv-1651 GW (C.D. Cal.);
`
`f. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Ballantyne
`
`Brands, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1652 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`g. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Spark
`
`Industries, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1653 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`h. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Logic
`
`Technology Development LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1654 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`i. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. VMR Products,
`
`LLC, dba V2Cigs, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1655 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`j. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. NJOY, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-8144 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`k. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. LOEC, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-8149 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`l. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. CB
`
`Distributors, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-8154 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`m. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Vapor Corp.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-8155 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`n. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. FIN Branding
`
`Group, LLC and Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd., Civil Action No.
`
`2:14-cv-8156 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`o. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Ballantyne
`
`Brands, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-8157 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`p. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Spark
`
`Industries, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-8158 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`q. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Logic
`
`Technology Development LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-8160 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`r. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. VMR Products,
`
`LLC, dba V2CIGS, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-8161 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`s. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. NJOY, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-9263 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`t. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. LOEC, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-9265 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`u. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. CB
`
`Distributors, Inc., and DR distributors, LLC, dba 21st Century Smoke, LLC, Civil
`
`Action No. 2:14-cv-9266 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`v. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Vapor Corp.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-9267 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`w. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. FIN Branding
`
`Group, LLC and Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd., Civil Action No.
`
`2:14-cv-9268 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`x. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Ballantyne
`
`Brands, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-9269 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`y. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Spark
`
`Industries, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-9270 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`z. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Logic
`
`Technology Development LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-9271 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`aa. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. VMR Products,
`
`LLC, dba V2CIGS, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-9273 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`bb. Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Sottera, Inc., Civil Action
`
`No. 2:12-cv-5454 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`cc. Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. LOEC, Inc., Civil Action No.
`
`2:12-cv-5455 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`dd. Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. v. CB Distributors, Inc., an
`
`Illinois corporation and DR Distributors, LLC, dba 21st Century Smoke, LLC,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-5456 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`ee. Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. The Safe Cig, LLC, Civil
`
`Action No. 2:12-cv-5462 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`ff. Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Vapor Corp., Civil Action
`
`No. 2:12-cv-5466 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`gg. Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Finiti Branding Group, LLC,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-5468 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`hh. Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Barjan LLC, Civil Action
`
`No. 2:12-cv-5470 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`ii. Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Spark Industries, LLC, Civil
`
`Action No. 2:12-cv-5472 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`jj. Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited v. Nicotek LLC, Civil Action
`
`No. 2:14-cv-5477 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`kk. Ruyan
`
`Investment
`
`(Holdings) Limited v. Logic Technology
`
`Development LLC, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-5482 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`ll. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-2286 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`mm. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-3049 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`nn. Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-04534 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`In addition to this Petition, Petitioner is filing petitions for inter partes
`
`review of each asserted patent in the Co-Pending Litigation: Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,239, IPR2016-Unassigned (to be filed
`
`concurrently); Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,393,331,
`
`IPR2016-Unassigned (to be filed concurrently); Petitions 1 and 2 for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,490,628, IPR2016-Unassigned (to be filed
`
`concurrently); Petitions 1 and 2 for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,893,726 IPR2016-Unassigned (to be filed concurrently); IPR2016-Unassigned
`
`(to be filed concurrently); Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,689,805 IPR2016-Unassigned (to be filed concurrently); Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957 IPR2016-Unassigned (to be filed
`
`concurrently); and Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,863,752,
`
`IPR2016-Unassigned (to be filed concurrently).
`
`In addition to the Inter Partes review petitions above, Petitioner identifies
`
`the following related Inter Partes review proceedings and administrative matters:
`
`a. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-00098, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed October 21, 2014 by Petitioner Logic Technology Development,
`
`LLC;
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`b. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01513, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed June 26, 2015 by Petitioner JT International S.A.;
`
`c. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,863,752, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01604, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed July 20, 2015 by Petitioner JT International S.A.;
`
`d. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,863,752, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01301, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed May 29, 2015 by NJOY, Inc.; CB Distributors, Inc.; DR Distributors,
`
`LLC; FIN Branding Group, LLC; Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd.
`
`f/k/a Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation; and, Logic Technology
`
`Development LLC;
`
`e. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,490,628, Case
`
`No. IPR2014-01300, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed August 15, 2014 by NJOY, Inc.;
`
`f.
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,893,726, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01302, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed May 29, 2015 by NJOY, Inc.; CB Distributors, Inc.; DR Distributors,
`
`LLC; FIN Branding Group, LLC; Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd.
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`f/k/a Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation; and, Logic Technology
`
`Development LLC;
`
`g. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,239, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01304, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed May 29, 2015 by NJOY, Inc.; CB Distributors, Inc.; DR Distributors,
`
`LLC; FIN Branding Group, LLC; Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd.
`
`f/k/a Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation; and, Logic Technology
`
`Development LLC;
`
`h. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01587, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed July 14, 2015 by Petitioner JT International S.A.;
`
`i. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-00859, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed March 10, 2015 by Petitioner VMR Products, LLC;
`
`j. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,689,805, Case
`
`No. IPR2014-01529, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed September 22, 2014 by Petitioner CB Distributors, Inc. and DR
`
`Distributors, LLC;
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`k.
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,689,805, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01578, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed July 15, 2015 by Petitioner JT International S.A.;
`
`l. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,689,805, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01027, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed April 10, 2015 by Petitioner NJOY, Inc.;
`
`m. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,393,331, Case
`
`No. IPR2014-01289, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent
`
`Office, filed August 14, 2014 by NJOY, Inc.;
`
`n. U.S. Patent No. 9,326,548 to Lik Hon, filed April 3, 2014 as U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 14/244,376, which claims priority to the 742 Patent;
`
`o. U.S. Publication No. 2013-0125906 A1 by Lik Hon, filed January 11,
`
`2013 as U.S. Patent Application No. 13/740,011, which claims priority to the 742
`
`Patent .
`
`The 742 Patent was previously the subject of the following Petitions for
`
`Inter Partes Review, which are also listed above: Petition by JT International S.A.
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742, IPR2015-01587, which was
`
`dismissed by the Board due to settlement of the parties prior to a decision on
`
`whether to institute the proceedings; and Petition by VMR Products LLC for Inter
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742, IPR2015-00859, for which the Board
`
`denied institution.
`
`The 742 Patent claims priority
`
`to Chinese patent application
`
`CN200620090805U. The 742 Patent also claims priority to U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/226,818, which was originally filed as PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/CN2007/001575.
`
`2.5. Fee for Inter Partes Review
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a), and any other required fees, to Deposit Account No. 506499.
`
`2.6. Proof of Service
`Proof of service of this petition on the Patent Owner at the correspondence
`
`address of record for the 742 Patent is attached.
`
`3.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`(§ 42.104(B))
`Ground #1: Claims 2 and 3 of the 742 Patent (“the challenged claims”) are
`
`invalid under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the ground that they are rendered
`
`obvious by U.S. Patent No. 6,155,268 (“Takeuchi”) in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`2,057,353 (“Whittemore”). Takeuchi is attached as Ex.1004; Whittemore is
`
`attached as Ex.1005. Takeuchi was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office on July 23, 1998 and issued on December 5, 2000. Takeuchi is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b). Whittemore was filed with the USPTO on
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`September 27, 1935 and issued on October 13, 1936. Whittemore is prior art under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).
`
`This ground is explained below and is supported by the Declaration of John
`
`M. Collins (Ex.1003, “Collins Decl.”).
`
`Ground #2: The challenged claims are invalid under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 on the ground that they are rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No. 4,947,874
`
`(“Brooks”) in view of Takeuchi. Brooks is attached as Ex.1006. Brooks was filed
`
`with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on September 8, 1988 and issued on
`
`August 14, 1990. Brooks is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).
`
`Statement of Non-Redundancy: The grounds presented in the petition are
`
`not redundant. Ground #1, which is based on Takeuchi in view of Whittemore,
`
`relies upon a primary reference—Takeuchi—which was not considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution of the 742 Patent. Ground #2, which relies on
`
`Brooks as a primary reference, is not redundant of Ground #1 because Ground #2
`
`modifies the Brooks device in a way that is different than the modification posited
`
`in Ground #1. In particular, while Ground #1 uses the Takeuchi device as a base
`
`device and modifies it by incorporating a coiled wire heater wound around a
`
`porous wick-like structure as taught in Whittemore, Ground #2 uses the Brooks
`
`device as a base device and modifies it by incorporating a liquid container within
`
`the device casing as taught in Takeuchi. Additionally, Brooks is not redundant of
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`Takeuchi because it expressly discloses heating elements that constitute metal
`
`wires, as well as resistance coils wound on an insulating material.
`
`The grounds presented in this petition also are not redundant of the grounds
`
`previously denied by the Board in IPR2015-00859. In particular, the Board denied
`
`institution of grounds that combined Chinese Patent No. CN 2719043Y (“Hon”)
`
`with Whittemore, and European Patent No. EP 0 842 220 A1 (“Susa”) with
`
`Whittemore, finding that the petitioner in that matter had not articulated sufficient
`
`reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`make the proposed combinations and that the petitioner’s assertion of a desire to
`
`provide “more efficient, uniform heating” as a motivation to combine references
`
`consisted of unsupported conclusory statements. See VMR Products LLC v.
`
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., Case No. IPR2015-00859, Paper 9 at pp.24-25, 30-31
`
`(PTAB Sep. 16, 2015). As described herein, however, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combination of Takeuchi with Whittemore (Ground #1) is not subject to the same
`
`objection, as the proposed combination involves a known technique in one device
`
`being used to improve similar devices in the same way—a rationale for
`
`obviousness that has been expressly endorsed by the Supreme Court. See KSR
`
`Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); Ex.1003, ¶72. Further,
`
`Takeuchi expressly teaches the desirability of reducing the size, weight, and power
`
`consumption of its electronic cigarette, all of which are achieved by the proposed
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`combination. Ex.1003, ¶73. Thus, Ground #1 also differs from the grounds
`
`rejected in IPR2015-00859 because the Board in that case held that the petitioner
`
`provided insufficient evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`wanted to provide the claimed benefit—more efficient, uniform heating—in the
`
`smoking devices taught in Hon and Susa.
`
`4. OVERVIEW OF THE 742 PATENT
`The 742 Patent was filed on April 5, 2011, and claims priority through U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 12/226,818 (originally filed as PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/CN2007/001575) to a Chinese patent application which was filed on May 16,
`
`2006. The 742 Patent, at a high level, describes an electronic cigarette that, when a
`
`person inhales on the cigarette, atomizes a nicotine liquid to provide the person an
`
`experience similar to that provided by a combustible cigarette. Ex.1003, ¶14. The
`
`742 Patent does not purport to claim the broad concept of an electronic cigarette
`
`generally, and expressly acknowledges in the Background Art section the existence
`
`of “electronic cigarettes currently available on the market,” but notes that such
`
`products allegedly were complicated in structure, did not provide ideal aerosol
`
`effects, and lacked sufficient atomizing efficiency. Ex.1001. at 1:21-24.
`
`The electronic cigarette proposed by the 742 Patent comprises two shells
`
`(labelled a and b in the figure below) with shell (a) containing a battery assembly,
`
`an air-intake and sensing region, and an atomizer assembly, and shell (b)
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`containing a liquid storage component. Ex.1003, ¶15. These components are
`
`depicted in Figure 1 of the 742 Patent:
`
`
`Ex.1001, 742 Patent at Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`The electronic cigarette is activated by a person inhaling through the mouth
`
`piece (depicted in the figure on the right hand side). Inhalation creates a negative
`
`pressure in the device and air is drawn in through inlets (labelled a1 in Fig. 1) and
`
`through a valve (labelled 7 in Fig. 1). The negative pressure is detected by a
`
`sensor (labelled 5 in Fig. 1), which energizes the electric circuit on an electronic
`
`circuit board (labelled 4 in Fig. 1). Ex.1001 at 3:67-4:11. This causes the battery
`
`(labelled 3 in Fig. 1) to power the atomizer (labelled 8 in Fig. 1). The atomizer
`
`abuts a perforated liquid storage component (labelled 9 in Fig. 1). Ex.1003, ¶16.
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,365,742
`
`
`
`As shown in Figs. 17 and 18 below, the atomizer includes a porous
`
`component 81 set on a frame 82. Ex.1001 at Figs. 17-18, 5:42-46. The porous
`
`component, which is in contact with the liquid supply, absorbs liquid from the
`
`liquid supply. Id. at Fig. 1, 3:63-67, 4:36-40, 5:49-52. A heating wire 83 is wound
`
`around a portion of the porous component that is aligned with a run-through hole
`
`821 in the frame. Id. at Figs. 17-18, 5:42-49. The run-through hole enables air to
`
`be pulled past the heating wire. Ex.1003, ¶17.
`
`Ex.1001, 742 Patent at Figs. 17 and 18 (annotated).
`
`When the person inhales, absorbed liquid in the porous component 81 is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`heated and atomized by the heating wire, becoming suspended in the airflow as an
`
`aerosol, which is then inhaled by the person through the air channel b1. Ex.1001 at
`
`4:23-32;