throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: March 10, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADAPTIVE HEADLAMP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`RAMA G. ELLURU and SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 325(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Toyota Motor Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2;
`“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 7, 14–16, and 31 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,241,034 C1 (Exs. 1001–1002; “the ’034 patent”). Adaptive
`Headlamp Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 6; “Prelim. Resp.”).
`The Petition is before us pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`provides that an inter partes review may not “be instituted unless the
`Director[1] determines that the information presented in the petition [] shows
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon
`consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we deny institution
`of an inter partes review.
`
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Related Proceedings in the USPTO
`A.
`The ’034 patent was the subject of an ex parte reexamination filed by
`the Patent Owner (Serial No. 90/011,011, filed July 10, 2010) (see Exs.
`1002, 1004), and an inter partes reexamination request filed by Volkswagen
`Group of America, Inc. (Serial No. 95/001,621) (see Exs. 1002, 1005).
`These reexamination proceedings were subsequently merged, and a
`reexamination certificate issued on June 14, 2013. Ex. 1002.
`
`
`1 “The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4(a).
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`The ’034 patent has also been the subject of five other inter partes
`review petitions, three of which remain pending and have already proceeded
`to oral argument:
`(a) Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Adaptive Headlamp
`Technologies, Inc., Case IPR2016-00079 (the “Koito IPR”) (filed Oct. 23,
`2015; instituted May 5, 2016; oral hearing held Jan. 11, 2017)2;
`(b) SL Corp. v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc., Case
`IPR2016-00193 (the “first SL Corp. IPR”) (filed Nov. 13, 2015; instituted
`June 6, 2016; oral hearing held Feb. 23, 2017)3;
`(c) BMW of North America, LLC v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies,
`Inc., Case IPR2016-00196 (filed Nov. 16, 2015; terminated Apr. 19, 2016)4;
`(d) Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies,
`Inc., Case No. IPR2016-00501 (filed Nov. Jan. 26, 2016; terminated April
`19, 2016)5; and
`(e) SL Corp. v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc., Case No.
`IPR2016-01368 (the “second SL Corp. IPR”) (filed July 6, 2016; merged
`with IPR2016-00079 on Nov. 16, 2016; oral hearing held Feb. 23, 2017).6
`
`
`
`2 See IPR2016-00079 Papers 2, 11, 23.
`3 See IPR2016-00193 Papers 2, 10, 24.
`4 See IPR2016-00196 Papers 2, 11.
`5 See IPR2016-00501 Papers 1, 10.
`6 See IPR2016-01368 Papers 2, 9; IPR2016-00079 Paper 19.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`Related Proceedings in District Court
`B.
`The’034 patent is asserted by Patent Owner in several pending
`litigations in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Pet. 1–2;
`Paper 5, 2–3.
`One of the Delaware litigations is Adaptive Headlamp Technologies,
`Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Civil Action No. 1:15cv00779 (D.
`Del.), which was filed on September 4, 2015. See CM/ECF Docket of Case
`No. 1:15-cv-00779-GMS (D. Del.), D.I. 1. On May 13, 2016, the Court
`granted a request by Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (“Toyota
`Motor Sales”) for a stay of the Delaware litigation in view of our May 5,
`2016 decision in IPR2016-00079 instituting an IPR of the ’034 patent, and
`the second inter partes review petition in IPR2016-00193 regarding the ’034
`patent. See id., D.I. 31, 1–2, 6. Toyota Motor Sales is a real party in interest
`in this proceeding. Pet. 1.
`The petitioners in the five earlier-filed inter partes review requests
`described above all are parties to pending or terminated litigations in the
`District of Delaware. See Pet. 1–2; Paper 5, 2–3.
`
`References Relied Upon
`C.
`Petitioner relies on the following references in support of the asserted
`grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References and Materials
`Japan Patent Application Publication H10-324191
`(pub. Dec. 8, 1998) (“Kato”)
`UK Published Patent Application GB 2 309 774 A
`(pub. Aug. 6, 1997) (“Takahashi”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1007
`
`1008
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`References and Materials
`U.S. Patent No. 5,868,488 (iss. Feb. 9, 1999)
`(“Speak”)
`Japan Patent Application Publication H01-223042
`(pub. Sept. 6, 1989) (“Uguchi”)
`
`Pet. 5.
`
`Exhibit No.
`1009
`
`1011
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Asserted
`Ground7
`1
`
`2
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`7, 14–16,
`and 31
`7, 14–16,
`and 31
`
`Pet. 5, 16.8
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`References
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Kato and Takahashi
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Speak, Takahashi,
`and Uguchi
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`“Congress did not mandate that an inter partes review must be
`instituted under certain conditions. Rather, by stating that the Director—and
`by extension, the Board—may not institute review unless certain conditions
`are met, Congress made institution discretionary.” Intelligent Bio-Systems,
`Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Case IPR2013-00324, slip op. 4 (PTAB
`Nov. 21, 2013) (Paper 19).
`
`
`7 We refer to the asserted grounds by these numbers in our analysis.
`8 Page 5 of the Petition erroneously refers to claim 1, which was cancelled
`during the inter partes reexamination proceeding. See Ex. 1002, 1:17. Page
`16 of the Petition makes clear that Petitioner intended to refer to claim 7.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) gives us discretion to deny institution of an inter
`partes review in the event other proceedings involving the challenged patent
`are already pending, and indicates that we may consider the extent of
`overlap between proceedings in reaching our decision:
`MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS – [I]f another proceeding or
`matter involving the patent is before the Office, the
`Director may determine the manner in which the [current
`proceeding] or other matter may proceed,
`including
`providing
`for
`the stay,
`transfer, consolidation, or
`termination of any such matter or proceeding.
` In
`determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under
`this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take
`into account whether, and reject the petition or request
`because, the same or substantially the same prior art or
`arguments previously were presented to the Office.
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Our rules also provide that “[w]here another matter
`involving the patent is before the Office, the Board may during the pendency
`of the inter partes review enter any appropriate order regarding the
`additional matter including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or
`termination of any such matter.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a). We construe our
`rules “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1.
`Patent Owner asks that we deny institution of a trial in this proceeding
`in view of the five other inter partes review requests that have been filed
`challenging the ’034 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3. Below, we analyze the extent
`of the overlap between the present Petition and the prior petitions, and then
`consider other factors relevant to the issue of whether we should exercise
`our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`A. Overlap between Current Petition and Pending Proceedings
`Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 7, 14–16, and 31 over Kato and
`Takahashi
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1 of the present Petition is subsumed by instituted grounds of
`unpatentability in the three currently pending proceedings. In the Koito IPR
`and second SL Corp. IPR, we instituted an inter partes review as to the
`alleged obviousness of claims 7–9, 13–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, and
`35 over Kato and Takahashi. IPR2016-00079 Paper 11, 39; IPR2016-01368
`Paper 9, 10. In the first SL Corp. IPR, we instituted inter partes review as to
`the alleged obviousness of claims 7–9, 13–18, 21, 23, 24, and 28–33 over
`Kato and Takahashi. IPR2016-00193 Paper 10, 36.
`
`2.
`
`Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 7, 14–16, and 31 over Speak,
`Takahashi, and Uguchi
`
`As discussed above, all of the claims challenged in Ground 2 are
`already the subject of pending challenges based on Kato and Takahashi.
`Four of the instituted grounds in the Koito IPR also involve the Uguchi
`reference. IPR2016-00079 Paper 11, 39. The Speak reference was not cited
`in any of the pending proceedings; however, as explained below, Petitioner
`is citing Speak in a similar manner to the way that Kato was cited in the
`Koito and SL Corp. IPRs.
`In the Koito and SL Corp. IPRs, the petitioners rely on Kato primarily
`for its disclosure of an automatic directional control system for a vehicle
`headlight that includes sensors, a control unit, and actuators/step motors.
`See generally IPR2016-00079 Paper 11, 8–23; IPR2016-00193 Paper 10,
`9–20; IPR2016-01368 Paper 2, 5. Figure 1 of Kato is reproduced below.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Kato is a block diagram illustrating one embodiment of a
`headlight optical axis control device. Ex. 1007 ¶ 15. Figure 1 depicts a
`series of sensors (reference numerals 14, 16, 18, 121, and 122) that detect
`steering angle and other vehicle data, and a control unit (reference numeral
`24) that receives sensor data and drives three actuators (step motors 22x,
`22y, and 22z) in order to adjust headlight 20. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 16–19.
`In Ground 2 of the present Petition, Petitioner relies primarily on
`similar aspects of Speak’s system. See generally Pet. 40–53. Speak
`discloses a “direction sensing control system 10” for automobile headlights.
`Ex. 1009, 3:29–33. Figure 1 of Speak is reproduced below.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Speak depicts sensor means 17 that detects movement of a
`steering wheel, and sends data to microprocessor 18. Id. at 2:36–38, 3:45–
`47. Microprocessor 18 controls headlight control means 20 and 20' to adjust
`a vehicle’s headlight structures. Id. at 3:42–51, 3:57–59.
`
`The only substantive difference between Speak and Kato that
`Petitioner specifically identifies in the Petition is the fact that Kato relates to
`a motorcycle, whereas Speak relates to a four-wheeled vehicle. See Pet.
`38–39. However, the challenged claims all relate to an “automatic
`directional control system for a vehicle headlight,” and do not differentiate
`between motorcycles and four-wheeled vehicles. See Ex. 1002 1:57–2:16,
`2:43–58, 3:45–4:3. Thus, we are not persuaded that this difference between
`Kato and Speak is material to the patentability arguments advanced in the
`Petition.
`On this record, we find that even though Ground 2 relies on a different
`primary reference, it still presents “substantially the same . . . arguments
`[that] previously were presented to the Office” in the Koito IPR and SL
`Corp. IPRs. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`B. Other Considerations that Guide our Discretion
`In considering whether to invoke our discretion to deny institution
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a), we consider Patent
`Owner’s interest in avoiding harassment and delays. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-
`98, pt.1, at 48 (2011) (AIA proceedings “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
`alternatives to litigation.”).
`We also consider the Board’s interest in deciding issues efficiently.
`See, e.g., Samsung Elec. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP, Case
`IPR2015-00114, slip op. at 6 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2015) (Paper 14) (“[I]t is more
`efficient for the parties and the Board to address a matter once rather than
`twice.”). The Board may deny institution when the earlier proceedings are
`at an advanced stage. See, e.g., Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs.,
`LLC, Case IPR2014-00702, slip op. at 6–9 (PTAB July 24, 2014) (Paper 13)
`(denying institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because
`three other petitions for inter partes review of the same patent based on the
`same prior art were filed by third parties, one of which had already resulted
`in issuance of a final written decision that was the subject of an appeal, and
`another of which was pending a final written decision).
`In addition, we are mindful of the potential prejudice that would be
`suffered by a petitioner if we deny institution. For example, if a petitioner is
`a defendant in litigation and would be barred from filing a subsequent inter
`partes review, this factor may weigh against invoking our discretion to deny
`institution. See, e.g., Initiative for Responsibility in Drug Pricing LLC v.
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`Wyeth LLC, Case IPR2014-01259, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2015)
`(Paper 8). Where the petitioner is not a real party in interest to a previously
`filed petition, this factor weighs in favor of institution. See, e.g., Square,
`Inc. v. Protegrity Corp., Case CBM2014-00182, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Mar. 5,
`2015) (Paper 16).
`Here, the Patent Owner’s interest in avoiding harassment and delay
`weighs strongly against institution of an inter partes review. The ’034
`patent has already been the subject of six post-grant challenges that were
`filed by various third parties over the course of several years, including five
`inter partes review proceedings. The three pending inter partes reviews
`were all filed by defendants in the same set of related lawsuits in which
`Toyota Motor Sales, the present Petitioner, is a defendant. SL Corp. filed its
`first petition less than one month after Koito filed its petition. As a result,
`Patent Owner was able to address the patentability arguments in those
`petitions at approximately the same time, and SL Corp.’s initial petition will
`not significantly delay the date upon which proceedings before the Board
`will conclude. The Second SL Corp. petition merely copied the petition in
`the Koito IPR, and those proceedings were subsequently merged. Thus, the
`second SL Corp. petition also will not significantly delay proceedings. In
`contrast, instituting an inter partes review here would require Patent Owner
`to defend itself yet again against substantially the same arguments against
`the same claims that were raised many months ago, significantly delaying
`the completion of proceedings before the Board.
`The Board’s interest in deciding issues efficiently also weighs
`strongly against institution of an inter partes review. The Board has already
`considered arguments raised in three separate inter partes review
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`proceedings, and issuance of final written decisions in those proceedings is
`imminent. Allowing Petitioner to proceed with a new petition now would
`require the Board to expend additional resources to address substantially the
`same arguments again. We also are mindful of the delay that instituting
`another inter partes review might have on the Delaware litigations, which
`have been stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the Board.
`The fact that Petitioner has not previously filed an inter partes review
`petition weighs in favor of institution, as does the fact that Petitioner would
`likely be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from seeking inter partes review
`of the ’034 patent in the future. However, Petitioner bears at least some
`responsibility for any prejudice that would result from these circumstances.
`Had Petitioner—which was aware of the earlier-filed inter partes review
`petitions—expeditiously moved to raise its arguments, the Board likely
`could have coordinated Petitioner’s proceeding with the earlier-filed
`proceedings, minimizing the prejudice to Patent Owner and avoiding the
`waste of Board resources. Petitioner has provided no persuasive explanation
`for its delay.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`On this record, we conclude that the circumstances in this case weigh
`in favor of invoking our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.122(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review.
`
`V. ORDER
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all
`challenged claims of the ’034 patent.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01740
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`William Mandir
`John Bird
`Fadi Kiblawi
`SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`jbird@sughrue.com
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Pinkus
`Richard Wojcio
`FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE
`pinkus@fsclaw.com
`wojcio@fsclaw.com
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`

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