`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: November 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————————————————
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`—————————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`37 CFR §42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) requests the
`
`Board to reconsider and withdraw its decision (Paper 27) granting the motion of
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) to file supplemental information (Paper 21).
`
`The decision is inconsistent with Board decisions on similar motions and is deeply
`
`prejudicial to Caltech in both its timing and its scope. Because the Board
`
`misapprehended or overlooked these issues in granting Petitioner’s motion, the
`
`Board’s decision should be withdrawn and the motion denied. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d).
`
`II. MATTERS MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`
`A. Improper purpose misapprehended
`
`Petitioner candidly admitted that it wished to introduce supplemental
`
`evidence to preempt any Caltech attempt at antedating. Paper 22, 2-3. Such
`
`preemption is improper, however. Medtronic, Inc. v. Endotach LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00100, Paper 18, 4 (2014) (explaining that preempting future argument and
`
`shifting the ground of unpatentability are not proper uses of supplemental
`
`information); see also Paper 22, 2-4, 12.
`
`The Board’s decision to grant Petitioner’s supplemental information request
`
`places Caltech in a Catch-22 where it has to file its Patent Owner response without
`
`the benefit of knowing what, if any, publication dates are being asserted beyond
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`those specifically identified in the petition. It is not Caltech’s or the Board’s
`
`burden to figure out whether an unspecified date is or is not supported by the
`
`record. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than
`
`ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”) (citing DeSilva v. DiLeonardi,
`
`181 F.3d 865, 866-67 (7th Cir. 1999).
`
`While the Board cites relevance as its reason to admit this supplemental
`
`evidence (Paper 27, 4), relevance is a necessary but not sufficient condition. After
`
`all, even relevant evidence may be unfairly prejudicial or confusing. See, e.g., FRE
`
`403. Petitioner has been permitted to shift its theory of unpatentability long after
`
`the institution decision. Caltech is left to assess this evidence without the benefit of
`
`analysis from the petition or the institution decision. Inevitably, Petitioner will
`
`raise arguments in its reply that it will insist Caltech should have anticipated from
`
`the supplemental evidence. The Board should require Petitioner to present its
`
`evidence in the ordinary course of the proceeding (evidence supporting the petition
`
`with the petition; evidence supporting the reply with the reply). Medtronic,
`
`IPR2014-00100, Paper 18, 4. Petitioner should not be repeatedly permitted to
`
`change the record during Caltech’s response periods.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the improper nature of the
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`supplementation and the confusion and hardship that its out-of-sequence entry
`
`necessarily creates. The relief Petitioner requested was unwarranted and unduly
`
`prejudicial. Paper 27 should be withdrawn.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00728
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing was
`
`served on this 13th day of November, 2017, on the Petitioner at the electronic
`
`service addresses of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Dominic Massa
`Michael H. Smith
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`michaelh.smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`Date: November 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`