Paper 21
`
`Entered: October 20, 2014
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`CONOPCO, INC. dba UNILEVER,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Declining Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever (“Unilever”) filed a Corrected Petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,649,155
`B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’155 patent”). Paper 5 (“Pet.”). The Procter & Gamble
`Company (“P&G”) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Paper 17
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 1
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Entered: October 20, 2014
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`CONOPCO, INC. dba UNILEVER,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Declining Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever (“Unilever”) filed a Corrected Petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,649,155
`B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’155 patent”). Paper 5 (“Pet.”). The Procter & Gamble
`Company (“P&G”) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Paper 17
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 1
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`provides that an inter partes review may, but not must, be instituted if “there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow,
`based on the particular circumstances presented in this case, we decline to
`institute review. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 325(d).
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Unilever is a named defendant in a district court case involving
`the ’155 patent. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Conopco Inc., 13-cv-00732 (S.D.
`Ohio); see Pet. 2 (statement of related cases). Unilever filed, and we
`rejected, an earlier petition for inter partes review of claims 1–23 of the ’155
`patent (“the 510 Petition”). IPR2013-00510, Paper 2 at 3; see Pet. 2.
`
`
`B. The ’155 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’155 patent relates to a shampoo composition and method for
`providing a combination of anti-dandruff efficacy and conditioning.
`Ex. 1001 2:32–34. According to the ’155 patent specification, “[t]hese
`shampoos comprise: (A) from about 5% to about 50%, by weight, of an
`anionic surfactant; (B) from about 0.01% to about 10%, by weight, of a non-
`volatile conditioning agent; (C) from about 0.1% to about 4%, by weight, of
`an anti-dandruff particulate; (D) from about 0.02% to about 5%, by weight,
`of a cationic guar derivative; and (E) water.” Id. at 2:34–41. The
`specification further discloses that “[t]he cationic guar derivative has a
`molecular weight from about 50,000 to about 700,000, and has a charge
`density from about 0.05 meq/g to about 1.0 meq/g.” Id. at 2:41–44.
`
`
`
`2
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 2
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`
`Each challenged claim requires a combination of shampoo ingredients
`that includes a cationic guar derivative having a molecular weight and
`charge density that falls within specified ranges. The specification identifies
`polymers sold by Rhodia Company, under the trade names JAGUAR™
`C13S and JAGUAR™ C17, as suitable cationic guar derivatives for use in
`the invention. Id. at 20:9–12, 21:6–11.
`
`
`Illustrative Claims
`C.
`Unilever seeks inter partes review of claims 1–23, all of the issued
`claims of the ’155 patent. Claims 1 and 19 are independent claims.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
`1. A shampoo composition comprising:
`a) from about 5% to about 50%, by weight of the composition, of an
`anionic surfactant;
`b) from about 0.01% to about 10%, by weight of the composition, of a
`non-volatile conditioning agent;
`c) from about 0.1% to about 4%, by weight of the composition, of an
`anti-dandruff particulate;
`d) from about 0.02% to about 5%, by weight of the composition, of a
`cationic guar derivative;
`i) wherein said cationic guar derivative has a molecular weight from
`about 50,000 to about 700,000; and
`ii) wherein said cationic guar derivative has a charge density from
`about 0.05 meq/g to about 1.0 meq/g;
`e) water.
`Claim 19 further narrows the weight-percent, molecular weight, and
`charge density ranges of the cationic guar derivative. Specifically, claim 19
`requires that the derivative must comprise from about 0.1% to about 5% of
`the composition by weight, have a molecular weight from about 100,000 to
`about 400,000, and have a charge density from about 0.4 meq/g to about 1.0
`
`
`
`3
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 3
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`meq/g. The ’155 patent also specifies a method for applying the
`composition to wet hair to provide anti-dandruff efficacy and hair
`conditioning (claim 20) and to regulate hair growth (claims 22 and 23).
`
`
`issued August 6, 1991
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Unilever relies upon the following prior art references:
`Cothran et al., WO 96/32919, published October 24, 1916
`(Ex. 1044) (“Cothran”).
`
`Sime, US Patent 5,037,818,
`(Ex. 1028) (“Sime”).
`
`Evans et al., WO 97/14405, published April 24, 1997
`(Ex. 1010) (“Evans”).
`
`Bar-Shalom et al., US Patent 5,618,798, issued April 8, 1997
`(Ex. 1034) (“Bar-Shalom”).
`
`Cosmedia® Guar C 261, Product Data Sheet, Rev.
`January 3, 1997, Reg. 9 (Ex. 1040) (“Cosmedia”).
`
`Uchiyama et al., WO 97/14406, published April 24, 1997
`(Ex. 1045) (“Uchiyama”).
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Unilever challenges the patentability of claims 1–23 of the ’155 patent
`on the grounds set forth in the chart below. See Pet. ii.1
`
`
`
`
`1 Unilever’s chart of grounds (Pet. 13) is inconsistent with its table of
`contents (Pet. ii) and argument (Pet. 43–44). We identify the grounds as
`presented in the table of contents and argument.
`
`
`
`4
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 4
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Cothran
`
`Cothran and Sime
`
`Cothran and Evans
`
`Cothran and Bar-Shalom
`Cothran, Sime, and
`Cosmedia
`Cothran, Evans, and
`Cosmedia
`Cothran, Bar-Shalom, and
`Cosmedia
`Uchiyama
`
`Uchiyama
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims challenged
`
`1–11, 19, and 20
`
`1, 4–11, 19, and 20
`
`2–3 and 12–18
`
`21–23
`1, 4–11, 19, and 20
`
`23– and 12–18
`
`21–23
`
`2–3 and 12–18
`
`2–3 and 121–8
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`The Board has discretion to decline to institute an inter partes review.
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a). One factor the Board may take into account when
`exercising that discretion is whether “the same or substantially the same
`prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) (“[i]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding” for
`inter partes review, “the Director may take into account” that factor, and
`“reject the petition” on that basis).
`Unilever seeks inter partes review of claims 1–23 of the ’155 patent
`for a second time. Pet. 1; see IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 (review declined).
`Unilever does not address § 325(d) or compare the prior art or arguments
`
`
`
`5
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 5
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`applied in the instant Petition to those raised previously in the 510 Petition.
`Unilever avers, however, that it “is not barred or estopped from requesting”
`review “of any claim of the ’155 patent.” Pet. 1.
`P&G responds that § 325(d) supports rejecting the instant Petition.
`Prelim. Resp. 1–2. Specifically, P&G argues that “Unilever relies on the
`same arguments that the Board considered and rejected in the” 510 Petition.
`Id. at 5. P&G argues also that the instant Petition relies on prior art that is
`“cumulative and duplicative” of art raised in the 510 petition. Id. In P&G’s
`view, institution of review in this case would encourage petitioners to file
`serial petitions against the same patent claims to gain “an unwarranted and
`unfair procedural advantage in pending infringement litigation.” Id.
`We have compared the prior art and arguments raised in the instant
`Petition to those raised in the 510 Petition. Based on the information
`presented, we are persuaded that the instant Petition raises, at minimum,
`“substantially the same . . . arguments” that “previously were presented to
`the Office” in the 510 Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). That is one of several
`circumstances that inform our decision to decline to institute review. See 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a) (institution of review is discretionary, not mandatory).
`
`Grounds Based on Anticipation
`A.
`In the 510 Petition, Unilever raised anticipation grounds based on
`
`Bowser2 or Reid.3 IPR2013-00510, Paper 2 at 10, 31. In the instant
`Petition, Unilever raises anticipation grounds based on Cothran or
`Uchiyama. Pet. 13, 45. Although the instant Petition and the 510 Petition
`
`
`2 US Patent 5,723,112, issued March 3, 1998 (IPR2013-00510, Ex. 1009).
`3 US Patent 5,085,857, issued February 4, 1992 (IPR2013-00510, Ex. 1018).
`
`
`
`6
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 6
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`rely upon different prior art references, for the reasons that follow, we are
`persuaded that both petitions apply that art to make out “substantially the
`same” argument regarding anticipation. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (Board has
`discretion to reject a petition that raises “substantially the same prior art or
`arguments” as an earlier-filed petition) (emphasis added).
`The ’155 patent claims are directed to a shampoo composition
`comprising a plurality of ingredients. Both petitions contain argument
`focused on a particular ingredient—the cationic guar derivative—and,
`specifically, on two characteristics of that ingredient—the molecular weight
`and charge density. An argument common to both petitions is that the
`applied art teaches a cationic guar derivative that meets the molecular weight
`and charge density limitations of the ’155 patent claims.
`Claim 1 requires a combination of shampoo ingredients that includes a
`“cationic guar derivative” having “a molecular weight from about 50,000 to
`about 700,000” and “a charge density from about 0.05 meq/g to about 1.0
`meq/g.” In the 510 Petition, Unilever argued that Bowser or Reid, by
`referencing a material identified by the trade name Jaguar® C15, teaches a
`cationic guar derivative that meets those molecular weight and charge
`density ranges. IPR2013-00510, Paper 2 at 10, 14–15 (for Bowser); id. at
`32, 35–36 (for Reid). Unilever identified no disclosure in Bowser or Reid
`that established the molecular weight or charge density of the material
`identified as Jaguar® C15, but argued that the material inherently would
`have met the specified ranges. Id. We denied that first request for review
`because Unilever did not show sufficiently that the material identified as
`Jaguar® C15 necessarily possessed a molecular weight or charge density
`
`
`
`7
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 7
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`that satisfies the limitations of the challenged claims. IPR2013-00510,
`Paper 9 at 7–9.
`In the instant Petition, Unilever similarly argues that Cothran or
`Uchiyama teaches a cationic guar derivative that meets the specified
`molecular weight and charge density ranges. Pet. 15–16 (claim chart for
`Cothran); id. at 47 (claim chart for Uchiyama). Unilever relies on Cothran’s
`disclosure of a “cationic polymer,” which may include a cationic guar
`derivative, defined by molecular weight and charge density ranges that
`overlap the specified ranges. Id. at 15 (claim chart, citing Ex. 1044
`at 36:15–20). In a separate anticipation ground, Unilever relies on
`Uchiyama for a disclosure of cationic polymers defined by broad molecular
`weight and charge density ranges that subsume or overlap the ranges
`specified in the challenged claims. Id. at 47 (claim chart, citing Ex. 1045 at
`20:25–27, 30–32). In other words, as P&G points out, the instant Petition
`relies on Cothran and Uchiyama “for the disclosure of broad ranges of
`molecular weights and charge densities of cationic polymers.” Prelim.
`Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 15, 47).
`We recognize that the prior art disclosures relied upon in the two
`petitions are not identical. Whereas the 510 Petition focused on a particular
`compound—specifically, Jaguar® C15—for a disclosure of a cationic guar
`derivative that satisfies the molecular weight and charge density limitations,
`the instant Petition focuses on a general disclosure of cationic polymers,
`which may include a cationic guar derivative, defined by molecular weight
`and charge density ranges that overlap or subsume the specified ranges.
`Compare IPR2013-00510, Paper 2 at 10, 14–15, 32, 35–36 with Pet. 15–16,
`47.
`
`
`
`8
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 8
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`
`Based on the information presented, however, we are persuaded by
`P&G’s argument that both petitions apply the prior art references to support
`substantially the same argument: “Although Unilever now relies on
`different references, its argument remains the same: The Board should
`assume that the cited references meet the claimed cationic guar limitations,
`even though they provide no disclosure of particular materials that actually
`meet” the molecular weight and charge density limitations recited in the
`challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. On this record, we determine that the
`anticipation grounds presented in the two petitions are based on
`“substantially the same” argument; namely, that the prior art identifies, with
`anticipatory specificity, a cationic guar derivative having a molecular weight
`and charge density that meet the specified ranges. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`
`B. Grounds Based on Obviousness
`Similarly, for the grounds based on obviousness, both petitions are
`
`based on “substantially the same” argument that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have been led to select a cationic guar derivative, having the
`required molecular weight and charge density, for use in the inventive
`shampoo composition. Id. As explained above, the 510 Petition relied on
`the disclosure of a specific guar derivative—Jaguar® C15—for the requisite
`molecular weight and charge densities; whereas the instant Petition relies on
`a general disclosure of cationic polymers, which may include a cationic guar
`derivative, defined by molecular weight and charge density ranges that
`overlap or subsume the specified ranges.
`Here again, we recognize that the prior art disclosures relied upon are
`somewhat different in the two petitions. The statute, however, states that a
`
`
`
`9
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 9
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`petition may be rejected when “substantially the same prior art or arguments
`previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325 (d) (emphasis
`added). The statute expressly contemplates denial of review when the art
`applied in two petitions is different, but the arguments are “substantially the
`same.” Id. Although substantial similarity of argument, standing alone, is
`sufficient reason for a denial under § 325(d), several other circumstances,
`explained below, further influence our decision to decline review.
`
`The Circumstances Favor Declining Review
`C.
`We have considered the papers filed in this proceeding, as well as the
`papers filed in the request for inter partes review in IPR2013-00510. Based
`on the circumstances before us, we decline to institute review. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) (institution is discretionary, not mandatory). We approach our
`discretion to decline review on a case-by-case basis. As explained above,
`one circumstance that supports our decision declining to institute review is
`that the instant Petition raises “substantially the same” arguments as the 510
`Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`The instant Petition also raises similar, if not “substantially the same,”
`prior art previously “presented to the Office.” Id. (denial may be appropriate
`when a challenge raises “substantially the same prior art” that “previously
`[was] presented to the Office”). On that point, P&G observes that Sime and
`the U.S. counterpart to Cothran are listed on the face of the ’155 patent;
`those references, therefore, “previously were presented to the Office.” Id.;
`Ex. 1001 at 1; see Prelim. Resp. 7. Both references significantly feature in
`the instant Petition. See, e.g., Pet. ii (applying Cothran in seven of nine
`grounds); see id. at 27–32, 43–45 (discussing Sime at length). The instant
`
`
`
`10
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 10
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`Petition also reasserts Evans, a reference highlighted in Unilever’s earlier,
`unsuccessful request for inter partes review. See Pet. 9, 11, 32–41, 43–45
`(discussing Evans at length in this proceeding); compare IPR2014-00510,
`Paper 2 at 45–58 (devoting about thirteen pages to grounds based on Evans
`in the prior proceeding).
`Additional factors support our decision declining to institute review.
`Unilever does not argue that the other references applied in the instant
`Petition—Cosmedia, Bar-Shalom, or Uchiyama—were unknown or
`unavailable at the time of filing the 510 Petition. That fact supports a
`reasonable inference that those references were known and available to
`Unilever when it requested review the first time. Prelim. Resp. 1, 7. On this
`record, the interests of fairness, economy, and efficiency support declining
`review—a result that discourages the filing of a first petition that holds back
`prior art for use in successive attacks, should the first petition be denied. See
`id. at 1 (the instant Petition “simply swap[s] in new references, all of which
`were available to Unilever” at the time of filing of the 510 Petition; Unilever
`should have “presented its ‘best case’ in the first petition”).
`In that regard, P&G raises a legitimate concern that Unilever will
`continue to mount serial attacks against the ’155 patent claims, until a
`ground is advanced that results in the institution of review. Id. at 1–2
`(arguing that Unilever, “[u]nsatisfied with the” first result, is “hoping for a
`different result” in this proceeding). On that point, we find relevant that the
`instant Petition raises multiple grounds against each challenged patent claim:
`Five against claims 2 and 3; four against claims 12–18; three against
`claims 1, 4–11, 19, and 20; and two against claims 21, 22, and 23. See id.
`at 16–19 (chart of grounds). That multi-pronged attack follows our rejection
`
`
`
`11
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 11
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`of numerous grounds that were raised in the 510 Petition. See IPR2013-
`00510 (Paper 2) (asserting, for example, thirteen grounds of unpatentability
`against claims 1–5, 7, 9–11, 19, 20, and 22). P&G’s concern that it will
`“have to continually defend against repetitive [] challenges” to the same
`patent claims is not without merit, given the multiplicity of grounds applied
`in each petition. Prelim. Resp. 9.
`On this record, we are persuaded that our resources are better spent
`addressing matters other than Unilever’s second attempt to raise a plurality
`of duplicative grounds against the same patent claims. See Heckler v.
`Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (when deciding whether to take action in
`a particular matter, an agency must determine whether its resources are best
`spent on one matter or another). Unilever provides no persuasive reason
`why we should institute inter partes review in light of the above facts.
`Based on the circumstances before us, therefore, we exercise our discretion
`and decline to institute review. 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 325(d).
`
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
`the ’155 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 12
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00628
`Patent 6,649,155 B1
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Joseph P. Mera
`Michael R. Houston
`Jeanne M. Gills
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`jmera-pgp@foley.com
`mhouston@foley.com
`jmgills@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`David M. Maiorana
`John V. Biernacki
`Michael S. Weinstein
`JONES DAY
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
`msweinstein@jonesday.com
`
`Steven W. Miller
`Carl J. Roof
`Angela K. Haughey
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`miller.sw@pg.com
`roof.cj@pg.com
`haughey.a@pg.com
`
`13
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2002, pg. 13
`Viptela v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01125
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
