`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent 8,893,726
`Issue Date: Nov. 25, 2014
`Title: Electronic Cigarette
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01180
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,893,726 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Basis for the IPR .................................................................................... 1
`B.
`The Substitute Specification Introduced New Matter By
`Broadening The Scope of The Invention .............................................. 2
`C.
`The 031 Publication Anticipates The ‘726 Patent Claims .................... 5
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................ 6
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................................... 6
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 7
`1.
`Related Litigations ...................................................................... 7
`2.
`Related Proceedings Before the Board ....................................... 9
`3.
`Pending Patent Applications ..................................................... 10
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................. 11
`C.
`Service Information ............................................................................. 11
`D.
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 12
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT
`IV.
`OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`(B)) ................................................................................................................. 12
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`V.
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 14
`VI. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`(“PHOSITA”) ................................................................................................ 14
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14
`VIII. U.S. PAT. PUB. NO. 2007/0267031 ANTICIPATES CLAIMS
`1-17 OF THE ‘726 PATENT ........................................................................ 15
`IX. THE PRIORITY DATE OF CLAIMS 1-17 OF THE ‘726
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 38
`A.
`The Board May Rule on Priority Issues .............................................. 39
`B.
`Legal Standards ................................................................................... 40
`
`i
`
`

`

`2.
`
`C.
`
`Statement of Facts ............................................................................... 42
`1.
`The 031 Publication Requires A “Liquid-
`Supplying Bottle” In Order To “Achieve” The
`“Objective of the Present Invention” ........................................ 45
`Application No. 12/944,123 Was Amended During
`Prosecution With A Substitute Specification That
`Deleted The Liquid-Supplying Bottle Requirement
`As Part Of “The Technical Solution” Needed To
`Achieve “The Objective Of The Invention” ............................. 48
`The 031 Publication Does Not Provide Written Support
`D.
`for the ‘726 Patent Claims ................................................................... 59
`E. Whether the Terms “Liquid Supply” and “Liquid Storage
`Body” Have Written Description Support Is Irrelevant ...................... 68
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 71
`
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Alloc, Inc. v. ITC,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................60
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................... 4, 5, 42, 57, 60, 66, 67, 70, 72
`Core Survival, Inc. v. S & S Precision, LLC,
`PGR2015-00022, Paper 8 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2016) ................................................38
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`579 U.S. ___ (2016) .............................................................................................15
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................69
`Honeywell Intern. Inc. v. ITT Industrials, Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 4
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................... 6, 40, 41, 63, 64, 69, 72
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................15
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 40, 57
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................................................................... 40, 61
`Munchkin, Inc., et al. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00072, Paper 28 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2014), aff’d, 599 Fed.
`Appx. 958 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................39
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................. 4, 5, 40, 41, 59, 61
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................... 6, 38, 41, 60, 64, 65, 72
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Affinity Labs. Of Texas, LLC,
`IPR2014-01181, Paper 36 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016) ................................................39
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Assocs., Inc.,
`No. 2015-1565 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2016) ..................................................... 68, 69
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................41
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................57
`Watts v. XL Sys.,
`232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..............................................................................60
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................... 13, 37, 72
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................. 59, 64
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................15
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319................................................................................................. 1
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ........................................................................................... 1, 7, 13, 15
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`MPEP § 1893 ...........................................................................................................58
`MPEP § 608 .............................................................................................................58
`Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg., Vol. 77, No. 157 (2012) .......................... 7
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS LIST
`Description
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726
`Certified translation of CN 20040031182
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0267031 A1 to Lik Hon (issued as US
`7,832,410)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,832,410
`File History for App. No. 10/587,707 (issued as U.S. 7,832,410)
`Excerpt of File History for App. No. 12/944,123 (issued U.S.
`8,393,331)
`Substitute Specification filed in App. No. 12/944,123 (issued as
`U.S. 8,393,331)
`Declaration of Robert Sturges, Ph.D.
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,393,331
`IPR2016-01288 Paper 20: Termination Dismissing the Petitions
`U.S. Patent No. 8,689,805
`File History for App. No. 13/426,817 (issued as 8,689,805)
`IPR2016-01859 Paper 8: Institution Decision for Inter Partes
`Review
`[Reserved]
`Certified Translation of WO 2005/099494
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`Company (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`claims 1-17 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726 to Lik Hon, titled “Electronic Cigarette”
`(“the ‘726 Patent,” Ex. 1001), which is currently assigned to Fontem Holdings 1
`B.V. (“Patent Owner”). The Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office
`to charge Deposit Account No. 23-1925 for the fees set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for
`this Petition, and further authorizes payment of any additional fees to be charged to
`this Deposit Account.
`A. Basis for the IPR
`This IPR is being submitted because the priority specification that led to the
`‘726 Patent was modified extensively to add new matter (through both changes and
`deletions in the specification). These modifications allowed the Patent Owner to
`claim a different and broader invention than the invention disclosed in the original
`priority application. As a result, the ‘726 Patent claims are not entitled to the
`original priority date and are anticipated by an earlier grandparent publication.
`More specifically, Claims 1-17 of the ‘726 Patent are invalid because they are
`anticipated by U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0267031 (“031 Publication,” Ex.
`1003). The 031 Publication is the publication of a great-grandparent application
`(i.e., App. No. 10/587,707) to the ‘726 Patent. The ‘726 Patent is not entitled to its
`
`

`

`
`priority claim because the ‘726 Patent is based on a “substitute specification” that
`materially differs from the 031 Publication.
`B.
`The Substitute Specification Introduced New Matter By
`Broadening The Scope of The Invention
`The “substitute specification” changed the invention described in the 031
`Publication by deleting a significant aspect of the claimed invention, and
`essentially describing a new purported invention. See Section IX.C.2, infra. The
`invention described and claimed in the 031 Publication expressly required a liquid-
`supplying bottle. The Summary Of The Invention confirmed that “objective of the
`present invention” was “achieved” by a “technical solution” that expressly required
`a liquid-supplying bottle:
` Summary of the Invention
`
`[0006] To overcome the above-mentioned drawbacks, an objective of the
`present invention is to provide an electronic atomization cigarette that
`functions as substitutes for quitting smoking and cigarette substitutes.
`[0007] The objective of the present invention is achieved by the
`following technical solution.
`“[0008] The present invention includes a shell; a mouthpiece; an
`air inlet provided in the external wall of the shell; an electronic
`circuit board, a normal pressure cavity, a sensor, a vapor-liquid
`separator, an atomizer, a liquid-supplying bottle arranged
`sequentially within the shell….” (Ex. 1003 at ¶ [0008]; Ex. 1004 at
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`1:52-62).
`
`However, during prosecution of the grandparent application, the Patent Owner
`deleted all the Summary of the Invention language describing the “objective of the
`present invention;” deleted all language describing the “technical solution” for
`“achieving” the objective; and deleted all language requiring a liquid-supplying
`bottle as part of the “technical solution” for “achieving” the “objective of the
`present invention.” Ex. 1007, Ex. 1006 at pp. 98-110. The Patent Owner
`represented that the “substitute specification” making these extensive changes was
`merely correcting various “grammatical and/or translation errors.” Ex. 1006 at p.
`132. But, as further explained below, even a cursory comparison between the 031
`Publication and the ‘726 Patent specification shows that the changes went far
`beyond grammatical and translation errors. The result of these deletions was that
`the ‘726 Patent specification was impermissibly broadened to encompass a new
`purported invention, and to eliminate a liquid-supplying bottle as a limitation.
`A full review of the 031 Publication makes clear that the invention to a
`vaporizing device requires a liquid-supplying bottle. See Section IX.C.1, infra.
`Indeed, the 031 Publication narrowly describes the “present invention” as having a
`“liquid-supplying bottle.” Ex. 1003 at ¶¶8-10. Language such as this limits the
`invention to requiring a liquid-supplying bottle. Honeywell Intern. Inc. v. ITT
`Industrials, Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (claim term for “fuel
`3
`
`

`

`
`injection component” was limited to a fuel filter based on four occasions where the
`specification refers to a “fuel filter” as “the invention.”). Nowhere does the 031
`Publication describe or contemplate the “present invention” as having any variant
`of a “liquid supplying bottle” that does not require a bottle. See, e.g., Anascape,
`Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A patentee is
`not deemed to disclaim every variant that it does not mention. However, neither is
`a patentee presumed to support variants not described.”); PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-
`Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Entitlement to a filing
`date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious
`over what is expressly disclosed.”) (citations omitted).
`Significantly, the 031 Publication does not describe or contemplate any
`alternatives that do not require a liquid-supplying bottle. Honeywell, 452 F.3d at
`1318 (the claims were limited to a fuel filter which was not described merely as the
`preferred embodiment, but rather it was the only embodiment). See Section
`IX.C.1, infra. In fact, just like the original specification, all the original claims in
`the 031 Publication require a liquid-supplying bottle. Ex. 1003, Claims 58-101.
`Yet despite the limiting disclosure in the priority 031 Publication, none of the
`claims in the ‘726 Patent require a liquid-supplying bottle. See Section IX.C, infra.
`Simply stated, the 031 Publication does not provide written description support for
`the claims in the ‘726 Patent that cover bottle-less vaporizing devices. See, e.g.,
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306 (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to
`subject matter which is not disclosed.”).
`Under controlling Federal Circuit precedent, the deletion of a liquid-
`supplying bottle from the specification is “classical new matter,” which destroys a
`priority claim. Anascape, 601 F.3d at 1338-41 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A description
`can be broadened by removing limitations. The limitation to a single input
`member capable of movement in six degrees of freedom was removed, in filing the
`‘700 application, and new claims were provided of commensurately broad scope.
`This is classical new matter. . . . [T]he district court erred in its ruling that, as
`construed, the broadened scope of the ‘700 claims is entitled to the filing date of
`the [parent] ‘525 patent.”). The claims in the’726 Patent do not include a liquid-
`supplying bottle limitation that was part of the “technical solution” needed to
`“achieve” the “objective of the present invention.” Accordingly, the 031
`Publication does not provide written description support for the ‘726 Patent claims
`without a liquid-supplying bottle.
`C. The 031 Publication Anticipates The ‘726 Patent Claims
`As a result of the applicant’s attempts to broaden the disclosure of the 031
`Publication in order to obtain broader claims that did not require a liquid-supplying
`bottle, the 031 Publication became prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) to the ‘726
`Patent, and, as shown below, invalidates each of claims 1-17 of the ‘726 Patent.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`See Research Corp., 627 F.3d at 872 (broad claims were not entitled to the priority
`date of the parent application, and, as a result, the patent that issued from the
`parent application anticipated those claims). Specifically, bottle-less1 claims 1-17
`are broader than the written description of the 031 Publication that requires a
`liquid-supplying bottle, and are not entitled to the March 18, 2005, filing date of
`the 031 Publication. The next earliest priority date in the asserted priority chain of
`the ‘726 Patent is November 11, 2010. See Ex. 1001 at Col. 1, ll. 6-17. Because
`the claims of the ‘726 Patent are not entitled to a priority date earlier than
`November 23, 2008, claims 1-17 are invalid as anticipated by the parent
`application (the 031 Publication), which was published on November 22, 2007.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`For purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) only,
`Petitioner, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, identifies the real parties-in-interest as
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and RAI
`
`1 As used herein, the term “bottle-less” means that the claims do not require a
`liquid-supplying bottle. See, e.g., ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558
`F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]e refer to these claims as spikeless not
`because they exclude the preferred embodiment of a valve with a spike but rather
`because they do not include a spike limitation--i.e., they do not require a spike.”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`Services Company. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company further discloses that it is a
`wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc. Although Petitioner
`does not believe that Reynolds American Inc. is a real party-in-interest (see Patent
`Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg., Vol. 77, No. 157 (2012) at 48759-60) Reynolds
`American Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries (direct and indirect) nevertheless
`agree to be bound by any final written decision in these proceedings to the same
`extent as a real party-in-interest. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`1.
`Related Litigations
`Petitioner is a defendant in the following litigation involving the ‘726 Patent
`and certain related patents:
`Case Name
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, 1:16-
`cv-01255 (M.D.N.C.) (filed as 2:16-cv-2286 (C.D. Cal.))
`Fontem Ventures BV et al v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, 1:16-
`cv-01257 (M.D.N.C.) (filed as 2:16-cv-03049 (C.D. Cal.),
`consolidated with lead case 1:16-cv-01255 (M.D.N.C.))
`
`The Patent Owner has asserted the ‘726 Patent in the following terminated
`district court proceedings in which Reynolds was not and is not a party:
`Case Name
`Case Number District
`Filed
`Ruyan Investment Holdings
`Limited v. Smoking Everywhere,
`2:11-cv-00367 C.D. Cal.
`Jan. 12, 2011
`Inc. et al.
`
`Filed
`April 4, 2016
`May 3, 2016
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Case Name
`Ruyan Investment Holdings
`Limited v. Vapor Corp. et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v.
`NJOY, Inc.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v.
`LOEC, Inc. et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. CB
`Distributors, Inc. et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Vapor
`Corp.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. FIN
`Branding Group, LLC et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v.
`Ballantyne Brands, LLC
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Spark
`Industries, LLC
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Logic
`Technology Development LLC
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. VMR
`Products, LLC
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v.
`NJOY, Inc. et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v.
`LOEC, Inc. et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. CB
`Distributors, Inc. et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Vapor
`Corp. et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. FIN
`Branding Group, LLC et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v.
`Ballantyne Brands, LLC et al.
`
`Case Number District
`2:11-cv-06268 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-01645 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-01648 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-01649 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-01650 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-01651 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-01652 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-01653 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-01654 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-01655 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-08144 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-08149 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-08154 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-08155 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-08156 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-08157 C.D. Cal.
`
`Filed
`Jul. 29, 2011
`Mar. 5, 2014
`Mar. 5, 2014
`Mar. 5, 2014
`Mar. 5, 2014
`Mar. 5, 2014
`Mar. 5, 2014
`Mar. 5, 2014
`Mar. 5, 2014
`Mar. 5, 2014
`Oct. 21, 2014
`Oct. 21, 2014
`Oct. 21, 2014
`Oct. 21, 2014
`Oct. 21, 2014
`Oct. 21, 2014
`
`8
`
`

`

`Filed
`Oct. 21, 2014
`Oct. 21, 2014
`
`April 4, 2016
`
`1:16-cv-01261
`
`1:16-cv-01259
`
`Jun. 22, 2016
`
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Nu
`Mark LLC
`
`
`
`
`Case Name
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Spark
`Industries, LLC et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Logic
`Technology Development LLC et
`al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Nu
`Mark LLC
`
`Case Number District
`2:14-cv-08158 C.D. Cal.
`2:14-cv-08160
`C.D. Cal.
`M.D.N.C.
`(2-16-cv-
`02291 (C.D.
`Cal.))
`M.D.N.C.
`(2:16-cv-
`04537 (C.D.
`Cal.),
`consolidated
`with lead
`case 1:16-
`cv-01261)
`2.
`Related Proceedings Before the Board
`The ‘726 Patent was (or is) also the subject of, or related to, the following
`IPR petitions:
`Case Name
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Patent No. 8,393,331)
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,893,726)
`NJOY, Inc. et al v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`(U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726)
`NU MARK LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`(U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726)
`
`Filed
`Case Number
`IPR2014-01289 Aug. 14,
`2014
`IPR2014-01300 Aug. 15,
`2014
`IPR2015-01302 May 29, 2015
`IPR2016-01288
`Jun. 28, 2016
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Case Name
`NU MARK LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`(U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726) (denied)
`NU MARK LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`(U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726) (denied)
`NU MARK LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`(U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726)
`NU MARK LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`(U.S. Pat. No. 8,393,331)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726)
`(denied)
`NU MARK LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`(U.S. Pat. No. 8,393,331)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726)
`(denied)
`NU MARK LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`(U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,549)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,549)
`(denied)
`
`
`Filed
`Case Number
`Jun. 28, 2016
`IPR2016-01283
`Jun. 28, 2016
`IPR2016-01285
`Jun. 28, 2016
`IPR2016-01297
`Jun. 28, 2016
`IPR2016-01299
`Jun. 28, 2016
`IPR2016-01270
`Jul. 14, 2016
`IPR2016-01438
`IPR2016-01527 Aug. 3, 2016
`IPR2016-01664 Aug. 22,
`2016
`IPR2016-01859 Sep. 23, 2016
`
`3.
`Pending Patent Applications
`The ‘726 Patent claims priority, through a series of priority claims, to U.S.
`Pat. Appl. No. 13/560,789 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,490,628), to U.S. Pat. Appl.
`No. 12/944,123 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,393,331), U.S. Pat. Appl. No.
`10/587,707 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,832,410, Ex. 1004), International PCT Appl.
`No. PCT/CN05/00337 (published as WO 2005/099494), and to foreign patent
`application CN 20040031182.0. Ex. 1001 at Col. 1, ll. 6-14. Two patents
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`purportedly claim the direct benefit of the ‘726 Patent filing date, U.S. Patent Nos.
`8,893,726 and 9,326,549. Additionally, the following pending patent applications
`also claim the benefit of the ‘726 Patent filing date:
`Serial No.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/525,066, which claim the
`benefit of the ‘726 Patent filing date
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/719,923, which claims the
`benefit of the ‘726 Patent filing date (Abandoned)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/167,825, which claims the
`benefit of the ‘726 Patent filing date
`
`
`Filed
`October 27, 2014
`May 22, 2015
`May 27, 2016
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`Lead Counsel
`Back-Up Counsel
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Robert Mallin
`Reg. No. 34,167
`Reg. No. 35,596
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`rmallin@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Scott Timmerman
`Suite 3600 NBC Tower
`Reg. No. 55,678
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`stimmerman@brinksgilson.com
`Chicago IL 60611-5599
`
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Suite 3600 NBC Tower
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`
`
`
`D.
`Service Information
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel at the
`contact information above. Petitioner also consents to service by email at
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com, rmallin@brinksgilson.com and
`stimmerman@brinksgilson.com.
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ‘726
`Patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B))
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the
`‘726 Patent based upon 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pre-AIA) as set forth herein. Claims 1-17
`of the ‘726 Patent are unpatentable as anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No.
`2007/0267031 A1 (“031 Publication,” Ex. 1003). These claims are not entitled to
`a priority date earlier than November 23, 2008, and therefore, the ‘031 Publication,
`which was published on November 22, 2007, qualifies as prior art under § 102(b).
`Petitioner’s detailed statement of the reasons for relief requested is set forth below
`in the section titled “Statement of Reasons for the Relief Requested.” In
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c), copies of the exhibits are filed herewith. In
`addition, this Petition is accompanied by the declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges. Ex.
`1008.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Statement of no redundancy:
`The instant Petition is based on anticipation of claims 1-17 by the 031
`Publication. Petitioner filed previous IPR2016-01270 based on obviousness in
`view of different prior art. Additionally, Petitioner has filed pending IPR2017-
`01117 seeking review of claim 15-17 of the ’726 patent based on different prior
`art. None of the petitions cited above concern the priority issue raised here relating
`to the liquid-supplying bottle requirement in the 031 publication.
`This petition is also not redundant with IPR2016-01859 regarding U.S.
`Patent 9,326,549 (“549 patent”), in which the PTAB denied institution because the
`term “liquid supply,” which was interpreted to mean “a store for liquid,” had
`written description support in the 031 Publication. Here the ’726 patent claims do
`not include a limitation for a “liquid supply” and instead include a limitation for a
`“liquid storage body.” However, the issue of whether the “liquid storage body”
`term has written description support is irrelevant. Instead, the issue to be
`determined is whether the 031 Publication provides written support for claims that
`fail to include the required “liquid-supplying bottle.” The 031 Publication does not
`provide written support for claims that do not include a “liquid-supplying bottle.”
`Similarly, this petition also is not redundant with the petition in IPR2016-01288
`filed by an unrelated party (i.e., Nu Mark) to Petitioner Reynolds for the same
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`reason. Moreover, IPR2016-01288 was terminated before an institution decision
`was issued. See Ex. 1010.
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition meets the threshold requirement for inter partes review
`because it establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`For the ground of unpatentability proposed below,
`VI. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“PHOSITA”)
`The PHOSITA for the ‘726 Patent at the time of the alleged invention would
`have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`mechanical engineering, or biomedical engineering or related fields, along with at
`least 5 years of experience designing electromechanical devices, including those
`involving circuits, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer. Ex. 1008 at ¶¶22-25.
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), a claim in an unexpired patent is given its
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification in which it appears.
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___ (2016). Petitioner submits that none of
`the claim terms need to be interpreted because the priority issue does not turn on
`whether the claim terms used in the ‘726 Patent find written description support in
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`the 031 Publication, but rather whether the 031 Publication provides written
`support for claims that do not require a liquid-supplying bottle. Petitioner submits
`that for purposes of this proceeding only, the claim terms take on their ordinary
`and customary meaning that the terms would have to a PHOSITA in view of the
`‘726 Patent specification. Petitioner’s construction of claim terms is not binding
`upon Petitioner in any other proceeding related to the ‘726 Patent, and Petitioner
`reserves the right to offer additional or alternative constructions under the Phillips
`standard applicable in the co-pending district court litigation.
`VIII. U.S. PAT. PUB. NO. 2007/0267031 ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1-17 OF
`THE ‘726 PATENT
`Claims 1-17 of the ‘726 Patent are anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No.
`2007/0267031 (“the 031 Publication”) (Ex. 1003). The 031 Publication was
`published on November 22, 2007, which is more than one year prior to the
`effective filing date of the ‘726 Patent. As shown in the claim chart below, and as
`further explained in the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Sturges, the 031
`Publication discloses each and every limitation of claims 1-17. See Ex. 1008 at
`¶¶30-67.
`
`Claim 1
`[1.P] An
`electronic
`cigarette,
`comprising
`
`031 Publication
`Ex. 1003 at Abstract (“The present invention relates to an
`electronic atomization cigarette which only contains nicotine
`without harmful tar. The electronic atomization cigarette
`includes a shell and a mouthpiece. The external wall of the shell
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.1] a
`housing
`having an
`inlet and an
`outlet;
`
`031 Publication
`has an air inlet. An electronic circuit board, a normal pressure
`cavity, a sensor, a vapor-liquid separator, an atomizer, a liquid-
`supplying bottle are sequentially provided within the shell….”)
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ [0006] (“To overcome the abovementioned
`drawbacks, an objective of the present invention is to provide an
`electronic atomization cigarette that functions as substitutes for
`quitting smoking and cigarette substitutes.”)
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ [0028] (“When a smoker smokes, the mouthpiece
`15 is under negative pressure, the air pressure difference or high
`speed stream between the normal pressure cavity 5 and the
`negative pressure cavity 8 will cause the sensor 6 to output an
`actuating signal, the electronic circuit board 3 connected
`therewith goes into operation….The air enters the normal
`pressure cavity 5 through the air inlet 4, passes through the air
`passage 18 of the sensor and then the through hole in the vapor-
`liquid separator 7, and flows into the atomization cavity 10 in the
`atomizer 9. The high speed stream passing through the ejection
`hole drives the nicotine solution in the porous body 27 to eject
`into the atomization cavity 10 in the form of droplet, where the
`nicotine solution is subjected to the ultrasonic atomization by the
`first piezoelectric element 23 and is further atomized by the
`heating element 26. After the atomization the droplets with 35
`large diameter stick to the wall under the action of eddy flow and
`are reabsorbed by the porous body 27 via the overflow hole 29,
`whereas the droplets with small diameter float in stream and
`forms aerosols, which are sucked out via the aerosol passage 12,
`gas vent 17 and mouthpiece 15.”)
`
`Ex.1008 ¶31.
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ [0026] (“As shown in FIG. 1, the present
`invention can form an integrity like a cigarette holder, a cigar or
`a pipe. An air inlet 4 is provided on the external wall of the shell
`14.”)
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ [0028]