`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`Filed: November 14, 2016
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`On July 8, 2016, a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) was filed to institute inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–18, 29, and 38 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,909,094 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’094 patent”). Patent Owner filed a
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 5, “Prelim. Resp.”) on August 29, 2016. We
`
`authorized Petitioner to file a Reply and Patent Owner to file a Sur-Reply.
`
`Paper 7. Petitioner filed a Reply (“Reply”). Paper 8. Patent Owner filed a
`
`Sur-Reply (“Sur-Reply”). Paper 10.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we exercise our discretion to deny the
`
`Petition and not institute inter partes review of claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–18, 29,
`
`and 38 of the ’094 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’094 patent was the subject of an
`
`investigation (now terminated) before the International Trade Commission:
`
`In the Matter of Certain Toner Supply Containers And Components Thereof,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-960. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2.
`
`Petitioner has, thus far, filed four separate petitions for inter partes
`
`review of the ’094 patent. The first, IPR2015-01954, was filed on
`
`September 25, 2015. Pet. 2. This petition challenged claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–
`
`18, 29, and 38 (the same claims challenged here) of the ’094 patent.
`
`IPR2015-01954 Paper 2, 1. After reviewing the petition in that proceeding,
`
`the Board declined, on March 9, 2016, to institute inter partes review of any
`
`challenged claim of the ’094 patent. IPR2015-01954 Paper 9, 27.
`
`Concurrently with the filing of this Petition, on July 8, 2016, Petitioner filed
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`two additional petitions for inter partes review of the ’094 patent. Those
`
`petitions are now pending in IPR2016-01359 and IPR2016-01360.
`
`For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s nomenclature
`
`for the various petitions it has filed challenging claims of the ’094 patent.
`
`Thus, Petitioner identifies the petition here as “Fourth Petition,” the petition
`
`in IPR2016-01359 as “Second Petition,” and the petition in IPR2016-01360
`
`as “Third Petition,” all relative to the petition filed in IPR2015-01954, which
`
`we will refer to as “First Petition.”
`
`C.
`
`The ’094 Patent
`
`Of all challenged claims, claims 1, 11, 29, and 38 are independent and
`
`all are directed to a “toner supply container.”
`
`D.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`
`
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`Yasuda
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,481,344
`
`Jan. 2, 1996
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Brian Springett, Ph.D. Ex.
`
`1007. In addition, with its Reply, Petitioner provided a Declaration of Hui-
`
`Wen Hsieh. Ex. 1008.
`
`E. The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–18, 29, and 38 on one
`
`ground: obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yasuda. Pet. 20.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Discretionary Non-Institution
`
`1.
`
`Overview
`
`
`
`Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). A number of factors are considered in
`
`deciding whether to exercise discretion not to institute review, including:
`
`(a) the finite resources of the Board;
`
`(b) the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a
`final determination not later than 1 year after the date on
`which the Director notices institution of review;
`
`(c) whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent;
`
`(d) whether at the time of filing of the first petition the
`petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second
`petition or should have known of it;1
`
`(e) whether at the time of filing of the second petition the
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary
`response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision
`on whether to institute review in the first petition;2
`
`(f) the length of time that elapsed between the time the
`petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second
`petition and the filing of the second petition; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 See Conopco, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-00506, slip op.
`at 4 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2014) (Paper 25) (Informative), and slip op. at 6
`(PTAB July 7, 2014) (Paper 17); Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01423, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2015) (Paper 7).
`
`2 See Conopco, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-00628, slip op.
`at 11 (PTAB October 20, 2014) (Paper 21) (discouraging filing of a first
`petition that holds back prior art for use in later attacks against the same
`patent if the first petition is denied); Toyota Motor Corp., slip op. at 8 (“the
`opportunity to read Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2015-
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`(g) whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the
`time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions
`directed to the same claims of the same patent.
`
`LG Electronics Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Case IPR2016-
`
`00986 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2016) (Paper 12) slip op. at 6–7; NVIDIA Corp. v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Case IPR2016-00134 (PTAB May 4, 2016) (Paper 9)
`
`slip op. at 6–7 (“Nvidia”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. The First Petition—Filed in IPR2015-01954
`
`As noted above, the Petition here is not the first petition filed by
`
`Petitioner challenging claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–18, 29, and 38 of the ’094
`
`patent. The First Petition was filed on September 25, 2015, in IPR2015-
`
`01954, alleging two grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`(1) that claims 1, 8–9, 11, 17–18, 29, and 38 are
`
`anticipated by Matsuoka (U.S. Patent No. 5,903,806) under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b); and
`
`
`
`(2) that claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–18, 29, and 38 are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Matsuoka under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`3. The Decision Denying Institution in IPR2015-01954
`
`
`
`The First Petition (in IPR2015-01954) was denied on March 9, 2016.
`
`Ex. 3001.3 More than nine months passed between Petitioner’s filing of the
`
`First Petition, on September 25, 2015, and Petitioner’s filing of the Fourth
`
`Petition, in this proceeding, on July 8, 2016. During that time, Patent Owner
`
`filed a preliminary response in IPR2015-01954, addressing, inter alia, why
`
`
`00634, prior to filing the Petition here, is unjust.”).
`
`3 General Plastic Industrial Co., LTD v. Canon Inc., Case IPR2015-01954,
`(PTAB March 9, 2016) (Paper 9).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`Petitioner’s challenge in the First Petition against claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–18,
`
`29, and 38 was deficient. Also during that time, the Board rendered its
`
`decision in IPR2015-01954, declining to institute inter partes review for any
`
`challenged claim of the ’094 patent and explaining why Petitioner’s
`
`challenge against claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–18, 29, and 38 based on Matsuoka
`
`was deficient. Specifically, in denying the First Petition, in IPR2015-01954,
`
`we rejected Petitioner’s argument treating rotary power transmitting member
`
`44 of Matsuoka’s copier’s developing agent replenishing apparatus 40 as a
`
`component of Matsuoka’s toner cartridge 30. Ex. 3001, 19–20, 24. On
`
`April 8, 2016, Petitioner requested rehearing. That request was denied on
`
`May 19, 2016.
`
`4. The Fourth Petition
`
`
`
`The Petition here (Fourth Petition) is a response to our decision
`
`denying institution in IPR2015-01954. In this challenge to claims 1, 7–9,
`
`11, 16–18, 29, and 38, Petitioner no longer relies on Matsuoka. In this
`
`Fourth Petition, Petitioner relies only on Yasuda. Pet. 38–66.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner urges us to exercise our discretion to deny institution.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 5–9. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner should have known
`
`of Yasuda prior to filing the First Petition. Id. at 7. Patent Owner asserts
`
`that Yasuda “is cited on the face of Matsuoka, the reference asserted in
`
`IPR2015-01954.” Id.
`
`
`
` Petitioner responds that the Board should not exercise its discretion
`
`to deny the Fourth Petition. Reply 1–3. Petitioner argues that the Fourth
`
`Petition was “timely filed,” i.e., within the one-year statutory time limit
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Reply 1. Petitioner argues also that a
`
`discretionary denial is not appropriate here because the Fourth Petition does
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`not present the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments as the
`
`First Petition. Id. at 3–4. Petitioner asserts also that it was unaware of
`
`Yasuda at the time the First Petition was filed. Id. at 4. According to
`
`Petitioner, Yasuda was uncovered when, subsequent to the Board’s denial of
`
`rehearing of its decision not to institute inter partes review in IPR2015-
`
`01954, Petitioner initiated two new prior art searches. Id. Petitioner asserts
`
`also that Petitioner should not be charged with “earlier knowledge of
`
`Yasuda” because Yasuda is listed on the face of Matsuoka. Id.
`
`
`
`In response, Patent Owner points out that Petitioner does not explain
`
`what steps, if any, it took to identify prior art before filing the First Petition
`
`or why the Yasuda reference was not available sooner. Sur-Reply 2–3.
`
`According to Patent Owner, “[i]n light of prior proceedings between the
`
`parties, Petitioner ‘should have’ conducted any necessary searches before
`
`filing its first petition, and certainly before April 2016.” Id. at 2. Patent
`
`Owner further contends that Petitioner has “no excuse” for waiting to start
`
`the prior art searches:
`
` Petitioner was also made aware of the deficiencies in its first
`petition on December 22, 2015 when it received Patent
`Owner’s preliminary response in IPR2015-01954, and learned
`that trial would not be instituted based on that petition on
`March 9, 2016. Under these circumstances, Petitioner has no
`excuse for waiting until April 11, 2016 to start the relied upon
`prior art searches.
`
`Id. at 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5. Discussion
`
`We are concerned here about the limited resources of the Board and
`
`fundamental fairness for both Petitioner and Patent Owner. In that regard,
`
`our rules and procedures “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” See 37 C.F.R § 42.1(b).
`
`Specifically, we are concerned that the multiple petition filings by Petitioner
`
`here have unfairly prejudiced Patent Owner. Sur-Reply 4–5. As Patent
`
`Owner points out, Patent Owner is being forced “to expend time and money
`
`to defend its patent against multiple attacks.” Id. at 4.
`
`
`
`An important consideration under Nvidia and the related decisions
`
`discussed supra is whether the Petitioner knew or should have known of the
`
`new art when filing the First Petition. Nvidia at 8. We have considered the
`
`record and find that, at the time of filing of the First Petition, in IPR2015-
`
`01954, Petitioner either had all the information it needed, or had opportunity
`
`to access such information, to assert the unpatentability ground presented
`
`here.
`
`
`
`Petitioner should have been aware of Yasuda before the First Petition
`
`was filed. See infra. Yasuda is identified in Matsuoka. Sur-Reply 3. And
`
`the fact that Yasuda was uncovered only in a patent search that was initiated
`
`after the Board declined to institute inter partes review in IPR2015-01954 is
`
`of little help to Petitioner, who could have performed the search prior to
`
`filing the First Petition. The record shows that Petitioner waited to see if the
`
`first attack was unsuccessful prior to committing further efforts to conduct
`
`additional patent searches. The record shows also that Petitioner chose, at
`
`the time of filing of the First Petition, and as a part of its litigation strategy,
`
`to go forward with the positions taken in that First Petition, even after
`
`receiving Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. These factors weigh
`
`against Petitioner under Nvidia.
`
`
`
`The facts here suggest this is a case of undesirable incremental-
`
`petitioning, where a petitioner relies on a Board decision in a prior
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`proceeding involving the same parties, the same patent, and the same claims,
`
`to mount a serial attack against after an unsuccessful first attack, by
`
`addressing deficiencies argued by the Patent Owner and determined by the
`
`Board. Allowing such serial challenges to the same patent, by the same
`
`petitioner, risks harassment of patent owners and frustration of Congress’s
`
`intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. See Butamax
`
`Advanced Biofuels LLC, v. Gevo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00581, slip op. at 13
`
`(PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48
`
`(2011) (“While this amendment is intended to remove current disincentives
`
`to current administrative processes, the changes made by it are not to be
`
`used as tools for harassment or a means to prevent market entry through
`
`repeated litigation and administrative attacks on the validity of a patent.
`
`Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and
`
`cost effective alternative to litigation.”)). Also, “it is more efficient for the
`
`parties and the Board to address a matter once rather than twice.” Samsung
`
`Elec. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP, Case IPR2015-00114, slip op.
`
`at 6 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2015) (Paper 14). The Board’s resources would be
`
`more fairly expended on first petitions rather than on a follow-on petition
`
`like the Petition in this case.
`
`
`
`This Fourth Petition is not the consequence of a position surprisingly
`
`advanced by Patent Owner or adopted by the Board. The challenged claims
`
`clearly require the sealing member to be a component of the toner supply
`
`container, e.g., a toner cartridge. As the Board concluded in denying the
`
`First Petition:
`
`On this record, we are not sufficiently persuaded that
`
`Matsuoka’s “integrally combined fixed cover 32 and rotary
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`power transmitting member 44” can be said to meet the “sealing
`member” recited in the challenged claims as a part of the “toner
`supply container.”
`
`Ex. 3001, 20. Thus, Petitioner seeks to remedy its own error in treating a
`
`component of Matsuoka’s copier as a part of Matsuoka’s toner cartridge by
`
`filing additional petitions challenging the same claims. This Fourth Petition
`
`has been filed as an attempt to cure a substantive and material defect in the
`
`petition filed in IPR2015-01954. This imposes an unnecessary burden on
`
`Patent Owner and the Board.
`
`
`
`We have considered Petitioner additional arguments and find them not
`
`persuasive. For instance, we are not persuaded that the assertions that the
`
`Petition here is timely, or that Petitioner relies on different art and arguments
`
`here, are sufficient. We look instead to the Nvidia factors set forth supra.
`
`Those factors do not require the challenges to be identical or substantially
`
`identical, only that at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner
`
`knew or should have known of the prior art asserted in the second petition.
`
`In that connection, we adopt Patent Owner’s reasoning that Petitioner should
`
`have known of Yasuda before filing the First Petition. Sur-Reply 2–4.
`
`B. Conclusion
`
`For all of the reasons discussed above, and given the limited resources
`
`of the Board, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review
`
`for any of claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–18, 29, and 38 of the ’094 patent on any
`
`ground. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`It is
`
`III. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial or inter partes
`
`review is instituted for any of claims 1, 7–9, 11, 16–18, 29, and 38 of the
`
`’094 patent on any ground.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01361
`Patent 8,909,094 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Steven F. Meyer
`Tim Tingkang Xia
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`smeyer@lockelord.com
`txia@lockelord.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Edmund J. Haughey
`Michael Sandonato
`Justin J. Oliver
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`canon094ipr@fchs.com
`
`
`
`12