`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REACTIVE SURFACES LTD. LLP,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01914
`
`Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`Petitioner’s suggestion that the University of Minnesota and its Regents are
`
`“separate and distinct” entities for immunity purposes (Opp. 3) is meritless. The
`
`University is a corporation which was incorporated by the Minnesota legislature in
`
`1851. See Minn. Terr. Laws, ch. 3 (1851); Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. Lord, 257
`
`N.W.2d 796, 799 n.1 (Minn. 1977) (reproducing the University’s Charter); see also
`
`Ex. 2007.1 The University’s Charter is “perpetuated” in the state constitution. See
`
`Minn. Const., art. XIII, § 3. Section 4 of the Charter vests “[t]he government of
`
`th[e] University . . . in a Board of twelve Regents.” “The Board of Regents is the
`
`governing body of the [University].” Star Tribune Co. v. Univ. of Minn. Bd. of
`
`Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 280 (Minn. 2004) (citing § 4 of the Charter). In light of
`
`this organizational structure, which was laid out in the Motion to Dismiss (Mtn. 9-
`
`10) and which is not disputed by Petitioner, a proceeding brought against the
`
`Regents is plainly a proceeding against the University itself.
`
`
`
`Miller v. Chou, 257 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1977), the case cited by Petitioner
`
`as support for the suggestion that the University and the Regents should be treated
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2007, a copy of the Charter, but the Charter is a
`
`statute. For the Board’s convenience, Patent Owners submitted a copy instead of
`
`simply citing the statute. For the same reason, Patent Owners submitted copies of
`
`relevant assignments records (Exhibits 2003-2006) instead of simply providing
`
`reel/frame numbers.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`as distinct entities, in fact directly refutes that suggestion. In Miller, the Supreme
`
`Court of Minnesota noted that by “perpetuat[ing] unto [the] university” “all the
`
`rights, immunities, franchises and endowments” previously conferred upon it, the
`
`state constitution perpetuated the Regents’ sovereign immunity against being sued
`
`in state court. 257 N.W.2d at 278, 280. Thus, far from treating them as distinct
`
`entities, Miller recognized that the University’s “rights, immunities, franchises and
`
`endowments” necessarily included the Board of Regents’ right to assert immunity
`
`when a complaint is filed against it in state court. In doing so, Miller followed
`
`State ex rel. Univ. of Minn. v. Chase, 220 N.W. 951, 953-54 (Minn. 1928), which
`
`held that the University’s constitutionally-protected “rights, immunities, franchises
`
`and endowments” included the Regents’ authority, conferred unto them by the
`
`Charter, to govern the University without interference. Chase explained:
`
`That a corporation was created by the act of 1851 and “perpetuated”
`
`by the constitution with “all the rights, immunities, franchises and
`
`endowments” which it then possessed is plain. Of that corporation the
`
`regents were both the sole members and the governing board. They
`
`were the corporation in which were perpetuated the things covered by
`
`the constitutional confirmation.
`
`Id. at 954 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Courts thus do not distinguish between the University and the Regents in
`
`Eleventh Amendment cases, as seen in the cases cited in the Motion to Dismiss.
`
`Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 535-36 (2002) (treating a
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`suit against the Regents as a suit against the University, “an arm of the State of
`
`Minnesota”); Richmond v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Minn., 957 F.2d 595, 596 (8th
`
`Cir. 1992) (treating a suit against the Regents as a “suit against the University of
`
`Minnesota”); Issaenko v. Univ. of Minn., 57 F. Supp. 3d 985, 993 (D. Minn. 2014)
`
`(referring to the University and the Regents as “collectively, ‘the University’”); see
`
`also Humenansky v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 152 F.3d 822, 823 (8th Cir.
`
`1998) (treating a suit against the Regents as a suit against the University, “an
`
`instrumentality of the state”). These cases plainly recognize that a suit brought
`
`against the Regents is a suit against the University itself,2 regardless of how the
`
`complaint is styled. Petitioner’s suggestion that those cases do not indicate that the
`
`Board of Regents is an arm of the state (Opp. 6.) is simply incorrect.
`
`This is a proceeding against an arm of the State of Minnesota entitled to
`
`share in the State’s immunity. The Board should grant the Motion to Dismiss.
`
`
`
`2 Petitioner does not dispute that the University is immune, apart from speculating
`
`that a sovereign could lose immunity if it were “being indemnified by a private
`
`entity.” (Opp. 6.) The decision cited by Petitioner as support for this suggestion,
`
`Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., 65 F. 3d 771 (9th Cir. 1995), was reversed
`
`on direct review by the U.S. Supreme Court, see Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v.
`
`Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (1997), though Petitioner fails to acknowledge this (even as it
`
`cites the Supreme Court case elsewhere in its Opposition (see Opp. 4)).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Joshua A. Lorentz
`Joshua A. Lorentz
`Reg. No. 52,406
`Attorney for TMC and
`The University of Minnesota
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR IPR2016-01914
`U.S. Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS was served on
`
`March 24, 2017 by email on the following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`David O. Simmons (dsimmons@ivcpatentagency.com)
`
`Jonathan D. Hurt (jhurt@technologylitigators.com)
`
`Mark A.J. Fassold (mfassold@wattsguerra.com)
`
`Jorge Mares (jmares@wattsguerra.com)
`
`
`
`Dated: March 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Joshua A. Lorentz
`Joshua A. Lorentz
`Reg. No. 52,406
`Attorney for TMC and
`The University of Minnesota
`
`
`
`
`
`