`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`Valeo North America, Inc. and Valeo Embrayages,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00442
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`
`__________________
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00442
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`There is no case law holding that the requirements of § 119(a)
`
`are equally applicable to § 119(c). Rather, § 119(c) is a standalone
`
`provision that should be evaluated independently.
`
`Regardless, even for § 119(a), there is no case law firmly
`
`requiring a common inventor among the applications. Instead, Bos.
`
`Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc. holds that a nexus
`
`between the inventor and the foreign applicant is sufficient to award
`
`priority under § 119(a).
`
`Thus, irrespective of the applicability of § 119(a), the ’374 patent
`
`should not be entitled to the benefit of priority under § 119(c).
`
`A. Sections 119(a) and 119(c) are standalone provisions.
`None of the cases cited by Patent Owner unambiguously holds
`
`that the requirements of § 119(a) are applicable to § 119(c). These are
`
`standalone provisions. Section 119(a) discusses the benefit of priority
`
`for foreign applications filed within a 12-month window. Section
`
`119(c) serves as a bar to priority, and is not subject to a 12-month
`
`limit as described in § 119(a). Because § 119(c) has no 12-month
`
`limitation, the “first filed” application referred to in § 119(a) cannot
`
`be the “first filed” application of § 119(c). Thus, any requirements for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00442
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`the first-filed application in § 119(a) cannot be automatically
`
`extended to § 119(c). The MPEP supports this independent
`
`interpretation. See MPEP §§ 213.02.II (common inventor discussed
`
`specifically with regard to § 119(a)) and 213.03.II (explanation of §
`
`119(c) with no mention of common inventor).
`
`B. The case law does not mandate a common inventorship
`requirement for either § 119(a) or § 119(c).
`Regardless, Patent Owner overstated its position. There is no
`
`firm requirement for § 119(a)—and thus § 119(c), based on Patent
`
`Owner’s position—that the applications share one common inventor.
`
`Scimed addressed a specific situation where an inventor attempted to
`
`claim priority to two European patent applications filed by a company
`
`at a time where there was no legal relationship between the company
`
`and the inventor. 497 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In holding
`
`that this was impermissible, the Court made it clear that the foreign
`
`application “may be filed by someone other than the inventor”
`
`provided that a “nexus exist between the inventor and the foreign
`
`applicant at the time the foreign application was filed.” Id. at 1297.
`
`Here, the inventors of the ’374 patent were Patent Owner’s employees
`
`when the Degler priority document was filed, and thus there is a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00442
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`nexus between the inventor and the foreign applicant. In fact,
`
`Scimed goes on to state that “an applicant for a United States patent
`
`can rely on priority on the ‘first filed’ application by an assignee on
`
`his behalf” without specifying that common inventorship is a
`
`requirement. Similarly, the Board has observed that “the proposition
`
`that the inventive entity must be the same in both the foreign and the
`
`corresponding U.S. application in order to obtain benefit can no
`
`longer be accepted, if it ever was, as a hard and fast rule in view of
`
`the liberalization of the requirements for filing a U.S. application …
`
`wrought by the 1984 amendment of 35 U.S.C. § 116.” Reitz v. Inoue,
`
`39 USPQ2d 1838, 1840 (BPAI 1995). As such, pre-1984 cases such as
`
`Vogel v. Jones cited by Patent Owner or Olson v. Julia (209 USPQ
`
`159 (BPAI 1979)) are outdated and not controlling. Therefore, a first-
`
`filed application by the assignee can serve as a bar to an applicant for
`
`a United States applicant even if the applications do not have
`
`common inventorship, as is the case here. Applying Scimed to the
`
`’374 patent means that the ’374 patent could claim priority only to
`
`subject matter that was not disclosed and used as a basis for priority
`
`in Degler.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00442
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert C. Mattson
`Robert. C. Mattson
`Reg. No. 42,850
`Philippe J.C. Signore
`Reg. No. 43,922
`Lisa M. Mandrusiak
`Reg. No. 72,653
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: April 26, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number
`
`
`22850
`
`
`Tel. (703) 413-3000
`
`Fax. (703) 413-2220
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00442
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies
`
`service of this REPLY TO PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`
`RESPONSE on the counsel of record for the Patent Owner by filing
`
`this document through the PTABE2E System as well as delivering a
`
`copy via electronic mail to the following addresses:
`
`Cary Kappel
`William Gehris
`David Petroff
`ckappel@ddkpatent.com
`wgehris@ddkpatent.com
`dpetroff@ddkpatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert C. Mattson
`Robert. C. Mattson
`Reg. No. 42,850
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 26, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`