Bryan Wilson <Bwilson@careyrodriguez.com>
`Friday, September 7, 2018 5:42 PM
`Trials
`BriggsH@gtlaw.com; ullmers@gtlaw.com; PrisuaGTIPR@gtlaw.com; John C. Carey;
`Adam C. Underwood; Thomas K. Landry; Maria Martucci; SchindlerB@gtlaw.com
`RE: IPR2017-01188 - Patent Owner's request for authorization to submit a notice of
`supplemental authority
`
`. F
`
`rom:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Follow Up Flag:
`Flag Status:
`
`Follow up
`Flagged
`
`Dear Honorable Board, 
`
`The Board instructed Patent Owner to state whether Patent Owner’s request is opposed or unopposed.  Patent Owner 
`did just that.  Petitioner’s demand that Patent Owner forward Petitioner’s additional argument why it opposes Patent 
`Owner’s request was not only awkward, but also beyond the scope of the Board’s instruction.  
`
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s below attempt to distinguish Oticon, and requests authorization to 
`substantively address the applicability of Oticon in the requested notice of supplemental authority. 
`
`Kind regards, 
`
`Bryan Wilson
` Registered Patent Attorney 
`Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP 
` 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 
`Miami, Florida 33131 
`305‐372‐7474 (phone) 
`305‐372‐7475 (fax) 
`Bwilson@careyrodriguez.com
`www.careyrodriguez.com
`
`
`
`Bryan Wilson
` Registered Patent Attorney 
`Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP 
` 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 
`Miami, Florida 33131 
`305‐372‐7474 (phone) 
`305‐372‐7475 (fax) 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Bwilson@careyrodriguez.com 
`www.careyrodriguez.com 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From: SchindlerB@gtlaw.com <SchindlerB@gtlaw.com>  
`Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 5:25 PM 
`To: Trials@USPTO.GOV 
`Cc: BriggsH@gtlaw.com; ullmers@gtlaw.com; PrisuaGTIPR@gtlaw.com; John C. Carey <JCarey@careyrodriguez.com>; 
`Adam C. Underwood <aunderwood@careyrodriguez.com>; Thomas K. Landry <tlandry@careyrodriguez.com>; Maria 
`Martucci <MMartucci@careyrodriguez.com>; Bryan Wilson <Bwilson@careyrodriguez.com> 
`Subject: RE: IPR2017‐01188 ‐ Patent Owner's request for authorization to submit a notice of supplemental authority 
` 
`
`Dear Honorable Board:
`Despite Petitioner’s follow‐up request, Patent Owner refused to provide Petitioner’s complete position in
`response to the Board’s earlier email of today. For completeness, below is the Petitioner’s earlier email to
`Patent Owner:
`
`Counsel:
`
` You have our permission to represent our position to the Board as follows:
`
` “Petitioner opposes on the basis that the Oticon decision is inapposite to this IPR for the broad
`proposition noted by Patent Owner in the first paragraph of its email to the Board. The claims at
`issue in Oticon included a ‘means’ term, which triggered the presumption that § 112(6) applied, and
`the petitioner in Oticon failed either to rebut that presumption or identify an adequate
`corresponding structure from the specification. But here the challenged claims do not include a
`‘means’ term and, thus, are presumed not to invoke § 112(6). Because neither party rebutted nor
`attempted to rebut that opposite presumption and the challenged claims do not invoke § 112(6),
`Oticon is inapplicable to the disposition of this IPR. Moreover, despite Patent Owner’s broad initial
`characterization of Oticon, the Oticon decision also does not speak to the Board’s authority under
`Vibrant Media to apply prior art to claims that the Board has found to be indefinite under IPXL.”
` Regards,
` [signature]
`
`
`
`Barry Schindler
`Chair of Global Patent Prosecution Group
`Shareholder  
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 500 Campus Drive, Suite 400 | Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
`Tel 973 360 7944 skype: bj.schindler | Cell 973 519 4944
`SchindlerB@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`From: Bryan Wilson [mailto:Bwilson@careyrodriguez.com]  
`Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 4:23 PM 
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Cc: Briggs, Heath (Shld‐Den‐IP‐Tech) <BriggsH@gtlaw.com>; Ullmer, Stephen M. (Assoc‐DEN‐IP‐Tech) 
`<ullmers@gtlaw.com>; Schindler, Barry (Shld‐NJ‐IP‐Tech) <SchindlerB@gtlaw.com>; PrisuaGTIPR 
`<PrisuaGTIPR@gtlaw.com>; John C. Carey <JCarey@careyrodriguez.com>; Adam C. Underwood 
`<aunderwood@careyrodriguez.com>; Thomas K. Landry <tlandry@careyrodriguez.com>; Maria Martucci 
`<MMartucci@careyrodriguez.com> 
`Subject: RE: IPR2017‐01188 ‐ Patent Owner's request for authorization to submit a notice of supplemental authority 
` 
`Dear Honorable Board, 
` 
`We have conferred with Petitioner’s counsel and have been advised that Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request. 
` 
`Regards, 
` 
`Bryan 
` 
`
`Bryan Wilson
` Registered Patent Attorney 
`Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP 
` 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 
`Miami, Florida 33131 
`305‐372‐7474 (phone) 
`305‐372‐7475 (fax) 
`Bwilson@careyrodriguez.com 
`www.careyrodriguez.com 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>  
`Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 11:53 AM 
`To: Bryan Wilson <Bwilson@careyrodriguez.com> 
`Cc: BriggsH@gtlaw.com; ullmers@gtlaw.com; SchindlerB@gtlaw.com; PrisuaGTIPR@gtlaw.com; John C. Carey 
`<JCarey@careyrodriguez.com>; Adam C. Underwood <aunderwood@careyrodriguez.com>; Thomas K. Landry 
`<tlandry@careyrodriguez.com>; Maria Martucci <MMartucci@careyrodriguez.com> 
`Subject: RE: IPR2017‐01188 ‐ Patent Owner's request for authorization to submit a notice of supplemental authority 
` 
`Counsel, 
` 
`Patent Owner’s email does not state whether the request is opposed or unopposed.  Patent Owner’s counsel 
`should confer with Petitioner’s counsel, and let the panel know whether its request is opposed or unopposed. 
` 
`Regards, 
`Eric W. Hawthorne 
`Supervisory Paralegal Specialist 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`From: Bryan Wilson <Bwilson@careyrodriguez.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 5:33 PM 
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Cc: BriggsH@gtlaw.com; ullmers@gtlaw.com; SchindlerB@gtlaw.com; PrisuaGTIPR@gtlaw.com; John C. Carey 
`<JCarey@careyrodriguez.com>; Adam C. Underwood <aunderwood@careyrodriguez.com>; Thomas K. Landry 
`<tlandry@careyrodriguez.com>; Maria Martucci <MMartucci@careyrodriguez.com> 
`Subject: IPR2017‐01188 ‐ Patent Owner's request for authorization to submit a notice of supplemental authority 
` 
`Dear Honorable Board: 
`  
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests authorization to submit a notice of supplemental authority regarding
`the very recent Final Written Decision in Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB,
`IPR2017-01018, Paper No. 52 (PTAB August 21, 2018) (copy attached). The Board in Oticon held that
`petitioner failed to carry its burden of proving unpatentability where the Board could not construe the claims
`and therefore could not apply the prior art. 
`
` 
`As stated in Oticon:
`
`
`If the scope and meaning of the claims cannot be determined without
`speculation, the differences between the challenged claims and the prior art cannot
`be ascertained. See BlackBerry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, Case IPR2013-
`00036, slip op. at 19–20 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2014) (Paper 65) (citing In re Steele, 305
`F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) and reasoning that “the prior art grounds of
`unpatentability must fall, pro forma, because they are based on speculative
`assumption as to the meaning of the claims”). Because Petitioner has not identified
`structure corresponding to the functions recited in claims 7–10, we cannot ascertain
`the differences between the claimed invention and the asserted prior art, as required
`by Graham v. John Deere, because we cannot determine whether the prior art
`includes the corresponding structure or its equivalents.
`Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of
`demonstrating the unpatentability of claims 7–10 by a preponderance of the
`evidence.
`
`
`[W]e determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating the
`unpatentability of claims 7–10 over the asserted prior art, because Petitioner failed
`to identify, in the specification of the ’040 patent, any structure corresponding to
`the functions recited in claims 7–10. This failure prevents us from evaluating the
`asserted prior art with respect to the claims.
`
`
`Id. at 29-30.
`
`Id. at 87.
`
`
`Oticon was issued on August 21, 2018, one day before the oral hearing in this matter. Due to the then-
`existing PALM database outage, Patent Owner did not become aware of Oticon until after the oral hearing.
`4
`
`

`

`
`Permission to submit a notice of supplemental authority regarding Oticon is respectfully requested.
`
`
`Regards,
`Bryan E. Wilson 
` 
`
`Bryan Wilson
` Registered Patent Attorney 
`Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP 
` 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 
`Miami, Florida 33131 
`305‐372‐7474 (phone) 
`305‐372‐7475 (fax) 
`Bwilson@careyrodriguez.com 
`www.careyrodriguez.com 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us 
`immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information. 
`
`5
`
`