throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________________________________________
`
`GENERAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094
`Issue Date: December 9, 2014
`Title: SEALING MEMBER, TONER ACCOMMODATING CONTAINER
`AND IMAGING FORMING APPARATUS
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §108(c)
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01361
`
`NY 829947v.1
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On September 25, 2015, Petitioner General Plastic filed its first Petition
`
`seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 28 and 38 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,909,094 (“the ‘094 patent,” Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Matsuoka U.S. Patent No. 5,903,806 (“Matsuoka,” Ex. 2203)
`
`(Ground 1) and claims 1, 7-9, 11, 16-18, 29 and 38 under §103 as being obvious
`
`over Matsuoka (Ground 2). Under Ground 1, Petitioner correlated the recited
`
`sealing member with Matsuoka toner cartridge’s fixed cover 32 and the copier’s
`
`rotary power transmitting member 44 that become engaged only when the toner
`
`cartridge 30 is inserted into the copier. For Ground 2, Petitioner argued that the
`
`toner cartridge 30 could be withdrawn from the Matsuoka copier with the copier’s
`
`power transmitting member 44 still attached to the toner cartridge’s fixed cover 32.
`
`The Board denied institution on both Grounds 1 and 2 of the first Petition.
`
`On July 8, 2016, Petitioner General Plastic timely filed the subject Fourth
`
`Petition which seeks inter partes review of claims 1, 7-9, 11, 16-18, 29 and 38
`
`under §103 as being obvious over Yasuda (Ex. 1006). Because the Fourth Petition
`
`was timely filed, Patent Owner has not been unduly prejudiced. See Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. Bradium Techs. LLC,
`
`IPR2016-00449, Decision (Paper 9) at p. 8
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 27, 2016) (“the one year statutory time bar for filing a petition
`
`imposed by 35 U.S.C. §315(b) provides a self-limiting mechanism that protects
`
`NY 829947v.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner
`
`from prejudice resulting from serial attacks by the same
`
`Petitioner.”).
`
`II.
`
`THE FOURTH PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR
`REASONS WITHIN THE BOARD’S DISCRETION
`
`Patent Owner Canon seeks to have the Board exercise the discretion
`
`accorded to it under just 35 U.S.C. §314(a) to deny the subject Fourth Petition.
`
`See Preliminary Response (Paper 5) at pp. 5-9. However, in all of the cases cited
`
`by Patent Owner, the Board exercised its discretion to deny institution under
`
`§§314(a)/324(a) and §325(d).
`
`See NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co.,
`
`IPR2016-00134, Decision (Paper 9) at pp. 6-14 (P.T.A.B. May 4, 2016); Great
`
`West Cas. Co. v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`
`IPR2016-00453, Decision
`
`(Paper 12) at pp. 5-14 (P.T.A.B. June 9, 2016); Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble
`
`Co., IPR2014-00506, Decision (Paper 25) at pp. 4-5 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2014);
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Techs., LLC, CBM2015-00047, Decision (Paper 7)
`
`at pp. 6-7 & 10-13 (P.T.A.B. June 15, 2015); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rembrandt
`
`Wireless Techs, LP, IPR2015-00118, Decision (Paper 14) at pp. 4-7 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Jan. 28, 2015); Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., IPR2015-01091,
`
`Decision (Paper 18) at pp. 12-14 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2015).
`
`Patent Owner has not pointed to any Board decision denying a petition
`
`solely under §314(a)/ §324(a), without a finding pursuant to §325(d) that “the same
`
`NY 829947v.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the
`
`Office” in an earlier filed petition.
`
`A.
`
`The Fourth Petition Does Not Present The Same Or Substantially
`The Same Prior Art Or Arguments As The First Petition
`
`The first Petition relied upon Matsuoka (Ex. 2203). The subject Fourth
`
`Petition, on the other hand, relies upon Yasuda (Ex. 1006). Thus, the first Petition
`
`and the Fourth Petition present different prior art. See Fourth Petition (Paper 2) at
`
`pp. 2-3. As pointed out in the Fourth Petition, Yasuda was not considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution of the ‘094 patent. Id. at p. 20.
`
`In the first Petition, Petitioner correlated a structural element of Matsuoka’s
`
`copier (i.e., rotary power transmitting member 44) with limitations recited in the
`
`challenged claims. See General Plastic v. Canon, IPR2015-01954, Decision
`
`(Paper 9) at pp. 14-26 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016).
`
`In the Fourth Petition, Petitioner
`
`relies upon just
`
`the toner cartridge disclosed in Yasuda, without resort
`
`to
`
`correlating any copier component with a limitation recited in a challenged claim as
`
`part of its invalidity arguments. Thus, the Fourth Petition does not present the
`
`same or substantially the same prior art or arguments as the first Petition.
`
`For this reason alone, the Fourth Petition should not be denied under §314(a)
`
`or §325(d). See Microsoft, IPR2016-00449, Decision (Paper 9) at p. 8 (“Whether
`
`Petitioner initially failed to locate references that, in combination, disclose the
`
`claimed features or failed to argue them successfully in its first petition, alone,
`
`NY 829947v.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`does not immunize Patent Owner from challenges raised in a second properly filed
`
`petition.”). Moreover, Yasuda (Ex. 1006) differs significantly from Matsuoka
`
`(Ex. 2203) such that the institution decision on the first Petition cannot be used as a
`
`“roadmap” for the Fourth Petition. See Id. at p. 9; Atlas Copco Airpower N.V. v.
`
`Kaeser Kompressoren SE, IPR2015-01421, Decision (Paper 8) at pp. 7-8 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 28, 2015).
`
`B.
`
`As Of The Filing Of The First Petition, Petitioner Was Unaware
`Of Yasuda
`
`NVIDIA Factors (4) and (6) cut against a denial of the Fourth Petition under
`
`§314(d). On September 25, 2015, Petitioner filed its first Petition. On March 9,
`
`2016,
`
`the Board denied institution on the first Petition. On April 8, 2016,
`
`Petitioner filed a request for rehearing. On or about April 11, 2016, Petitioner
`
`initiated two new prior art searches. See Ex. 1008, Hsieh Decl. at ¶¶3-4.
`
`On May 9, 2016, Petitioner’s outside search firm first located Yasuda, which
`
`was transmitted to Petitioner’s IPR counsel on that same day. See Ex. 1008, Hsieh
`
`Decl. at ¶¶6 & 8. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner should be charged with
`
`earlier knowledge of Yasuda because Yasuda is listed on the face of Matsuoka.
`
`See Preliminary Response at pp. 7-8. However, while Patent Owner cited
`
`Matsuoka during prosecution of the ‘094 patent, it did not cite Yasuda. See
`
`Ex. 1001 at p. 2. Petitioner should not be held to a higher standard than Patent
`
`Owner. See 37 C.F.R. §1.56; Cf. Ex. 1008 at ¶8.
`
`NY 829947v.1
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Less than two months after Yasuda was first found on May 9, 2016,
`
`Petitioner timely filed its Fourth Petition on July 8, 2016, including the expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Springett which addresses Yasuda (see Ex. 1007 at ¶¶32-91).
`
`The first Petition and Fourth Petition both challenged claims 1, 7-9, 11, 16-18, 29
`
`and 38 of the ‘094 patent because Patent Owner asserted only those claims of the
`
`‘094 patent against Petitioner in the ITC Investigation. See Ex. 2202 at p. 1.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Fourth Petition should not be denied solely
`
`because Petitioner filed a first Petition on September 25, 2015.
`
`Dated: September 21, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Steven F. Meyer
`Steven F. Meyer (Reg. No. 35,613)
`
`NY 829947v.1
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e)(4) and 42.105(a), the undersigned hereby
`certifies
`that on September 21, 2016 a complete copy of
`the foregoing
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE was served in its entirety via electronic mail, as follows:
`Canon094IPR@fchs.com
`
`and
`
`Justin J. Oliver, Esq.
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`(212) 218-2000
`joliver@fchs.com
`
`and
`
`Edmund J. Haughey, Esq.
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`(212) 218-2000
`ehaughey@fchs.com
`
`and
`
`Michael Sandonato, Esq.
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`(212) 218-2000
`msandonato@fchs.com
`
`NY 829947v.1
`
`

`
`Dated: September 21, 2016
`
`/s/ Steven F. Meyer
`Steven F. Meyer (Reg. No. 35,613)
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`Brookfield Place
`200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor
`New York, New York 10281-2101
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
`
`NY 829947v.1

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket