UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`PATENT 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`PATENT 7,535,890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`
`Tables of Contents
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`1
`INTRODUCTION
`3
`BACKGROUND OF THE '890 PATENT
`3
`Prosecution History of the '890 Patent
`5
`Overview of the '890 Patent
`
`8
`III. THE PETITION PRESENTS REDUNDANT GROUNDS
`8
`Redundant and Cumulative Grounds Asserted in two Petitions
`9
`The Redundant Challenges Are Not Entitled to Consideration
`10
`1.
`The '220 and '221 Petitions Are Horizontally Redundant
`2.
`Petitioner Compounds Its Error with Vertical Redundancies 13
` Malik is also Cumulative with the Prosecution Record
`15
`Petitioner’s Abusive Pattern of Redundancy is Improper
`16
`
`IV. NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS IS UNPATENTABLE
` No Claim Construction Needed for “External Network”
`Independent Claims 28 and 62 and Dependent Claim 15 are Not
`Obvious Over the Proposed Malik-Väänänen Combination; and
`no other challenged claim is entitled to consideration
`1.
`Overview of Applicable Law
`2.
`No prima facie case for an “the client selecting one or
`more recipients connected to a local network”
`No prima facie case for an “external network” distinct
`from a “local network”
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`18
`19
`
`21
`21
`
`23
`
`26
`28
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Uniloc Luxembourg
`
`S.A. (“Patent Owner”) submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review (“the Petition” or “the '221 Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
`
`(“the '890 Patent”) filed by Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”). The Board should deny the
`
`Petition in its entirety because of procedural and substantive defects.
`
`Petitioner follows the same impermissible strategy in challenging the '890
`
`Patent that it uses in each one of the six concurrently-filed petitions (IPR2017-00220
`
`through IPR2017-00225), which collectively challenge a total of sixty-five (65)
`
`claims of four related patents. Petitioner consistently presents at least a pair of
`
`redundant obviousness theories for every challenged claim. As an apparent
`
`afterthought, Petitioner then offers an illusory justification that is applicable, if at
`
`all, to only a mere fraction of those redundant challenges.
`
`The present '221 Petition differs from a co-pending petition (IPR2017-002201)
`
`only in that the present '221 Petition relies primarily on the Malik reference (Ex.
`
`1007) (even though Malik appears on the face of the '890 Patent as a reference cited
`
`by the Examiner during prosecution). The '220 Petition challenges the same claims
`
`and relies, instead, primarily on Vuori (Ex. 1005). Petitioner’s alleged justification
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., No. IPR2017-00220, Petition for Inter
`Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2016), Paper 2 (“the '220 Petition”).
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`for filing two redundant petitions, at best, applies to only three of the twenty-nine
`
`claims redundantly challenged in each petition. Because Petitioner at least tacitly
`
`concedes that the co-pending '220 Petition is substantively stronger than the present
`
`'221 Petition for the vast majority of claims, it is anticipated that the Board will find
`
`the redundant challenges in the present '221 Petition based on Malik are not entitled
`
`to consideration.
`
`Another disturbing pattern of the six related petitions is that Petitioner does
`
`not provide even one explanatory claim chart for any of the redundant obviousness
`
`theories asserted against sixty-five (65) patent claims in total. To make matters
`
`worse, each petition primarily relies on ambiguous and unexplained citations to the
`
`art, without providing an accompanying explanation or argument as to why the
`
`reference(s) render(s) obvious the limitation in question. Cf. In Fontaine Engineered
`
`Prods., Inc. v. Raildecks, (2009), Inc., No. IPR2013-00360 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13,
`
`2013), Paper 9 (denying a petition for IPR brought on obviousness grounds because
`
`the petitioner’s claim charts only cited to disclosure of the alleged invalidating
`
`reference without any accompanying explanation or argument as to why the
`
`reference discloses or teaches the recited element).
`
`The declaration attached to each of the six petitions is of no moment because
`
`it simply parrots back the same citations and the same unexplained and conclusory
`
`statements presented in the corresponding petition. Cf. In Kinetic Technologies, Inc.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc., No. IPR2014-00529 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2014), Paper 8
`
`(denying the petition because the expert’s declaration did not provide any facts or
`
`data to support the underlying opinion of obviousness, but rather was substantially
`
`identical to the conclusory arguments of the petition).
`
`In addition to the procedural defects identified herein, Petitioner fails to
`
`articulate a cognizable obviousness theory for various claim limitations, including
`
`those involving recipient selection and a packet-switched network(s). The Petition,
`
`therefore, fails “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art
`
`patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). In view of the
`
`procedural and substantive defects identified herein, the Petition should be denied in
`
`its entirety as failing to meet the threshold burden of proving there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.2
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE '890 PATENT
`
`Prosecution History of the '890 Patent
`
`The '890 Patent is titled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP
`
`MESSAGING.” Ex. 1001 at [54]. The '890 Patent issued from U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/740,030, which has a filing date of December 18, 2003. The
`
`
`2 Should the Board institute proceedings in this matter, Patent Owner does not
`concede the legitimacy of any arguments in the Petition that are not specifically
`addressed herein. Patent Owner expressly reserves the right to rebut any such
`arguments in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`'890 Patent issued on May 19, 2009, after over six years of thorough examination.
`
`During prosecution, the inventor, Michael Rojas, filed a declaration pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 1.131. Ex. 1002 (Rojas Declaration). In this document, the inventor
`
`declares “I completed the invention disclosed and claimed in United States Patent
`
`Application No. 10/740,030, prior to August 15, 2003.” Id. at 89.
`
`The '890 Patent is the ultimate parent in a chain of continuation applications,
`
`as shown in the family tree below, which also maps each of the six co-pending
`
`petitions to its respective patent it challenges.
`
`Challenged by Petitioner in
`IPR2017-00220 & IPR2017-00221
`
`IPR2017-00222
`
`IPR2017-00223 &
`IPR2017-00224
`
`IPR2017-00225
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`
` Overview of the '890 Patent
`
`The
`
`'890 Patent
`
`recognized
`
`that
`
`conventional
`
`circuit-switched
`
`communications enabled traditional telephony yet had a variety of technical
`
`disadvantages that limited developing other forms of communication over such
`
`networks. According
`
`to
`
`the
`
`'890 Patent, “[c]ircuit switching provides a
`
`communication path (i.e., dedicated circuit) for a telephone call from the telephone
`
`terminal to another device 20 over the [public switched telephone network or] PSTN,
`
`including another
`
`telephone
`
`terminal. During
`
`the
`
`telephone call, voice
`
`communication takes place over that communication path.” (Ex. 1001, 1:18-23.)
`
`The '890 Patent expressly distinguishes circuit-switched networks from
`
`packet-switched networks (e.g., the Internet) at least in that the latter routes
`
`packetized digital information, such as “Voice over Internet Protocol (i.e., “VoIP”),
`
`also known as IP telephony or Internet telephony.”3 (1:24-26.) Because legacy
`
`
`3 Consistent with the '890 Patent specification, the USPTO has also recognized there
`are significant differences between circuit-switched and packet-switched networks
`during the relevant timeframe. See, e.g., U.S. Application No. 90/012,728, Notice of
`Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, dated April 10, 2014, where the
`Examiner adopted the following argument:
`
`Ethernet packet switching protocol, including TCP/IP, are very specific
`connectionless/packet switched protocols. In contrast to connection-
`oriented protocols, connectionless/packet switched protocols do not
`need to set up a dedicated path in advance. Rather, routers send
`fragmented messages or “packets” to their destination independently.
`Connectionless protocols have a number of advantages over
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`circuit-switched devices were unable to communicate directly over packet-switched
`
`networks, media gateways (114) were designed to receive circuit-switched signals
`
`and packetize them for transmittal over packet-switched networks, and vice versa.
`
`(1:54-2:10.) The conversion effected by media gateways (e.g., 114 and 118)
`
`highlights the fact that packetized data carried over packet-switched networks (e.g.,
`
`IP network 102) are different from and are incompatible with an audio signal carried
`
`over a dedicated packet-switched circuit. (1:18-23.)
`
`The '890 Patent further recognized that, notwithstanding the advent of instant
`
`text messages, at the time of the claimed invention there was no similarly convenient
`
`analog to leaving an instant voice message over a packet-switched network. (2:11-
`
`43.) Rather, “conventionally, leaving a voice message involves dialing the
`
`recipient’s telephone number (often without knowing whether the recipient will
`
`answer), waiting for the connection to be established, speaking to an operator or
`
`navigating through a menu of options, listening to a greeting message, and recording
`
`the message for later pickup by the recipient. In that message, the user must typically
`
`identify himself or herself in order for the recipient to return the call.” (2:15-22.)
`
`The inventor observed, therefore, that “notwithstanding the foregoing
`
`advances in the VoIP/PSTN voice communication and voice/text messaging, there
`
`
`connection-oriented protocols, including better use of available
`bandwidth.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`is still a need in the art for providing a system and method for providing instant VoIP
`
`messaging over an IP network.” (2:36-42.) Certain embodiments of the '890 Patent
`
`addressed that need, in part, by providing a user-accessible client (208) that is
`
`specially configured for instant voice message (IVM) and for direct communication
`
`over a packet-switched network (e.g., through an Ethernet card) (12:4-5.) More
`
`specifically, the '890 Patent teaches that certain clients (208) are specially configured
`
`to “listen[] to the input audio device 212,” “record[] the user’s speech into a digitized
`
`audio file 210 (i.e., instant voice message) stored on the IVM client 208,” and
`
`“transmit[] the digitized audio file 210” as packetized data (e.g., using TCP/IP) over
`
`a packet-switched network (e.g., network 204) “to the local IVM server 202.” (7:65-
`
`8:1.)
`
`The challenged claims include six sets of claims. Claims 1, 14, 28, 40, 51, and
`
`62 are the challenged independent claims. For the convenience of the Board,
`
`independent Claim 28 is reproduced below:
`
`28. An instant voice messaging system for delivering
`instant messages over a plurality of packet-switched
`networks, the system comprising:
`a client connected to an external network, the client
`selecting one or more recipients connected to a local
`network, generating an instant voice message therefor, and
`transmitting the selected recipients and the instant voice
`message therefor over the external network;
`a external server system connected to the external
`network, the external server system receiving the selected
`recipients and the instant voice message, and routing the
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`selected recipients and the instant voice message over the
`external network and the local network; and
`a local server connected to the local network, the
`local server receiving the selected recipients and the
`instant voice message therefor, and delivering the instant
`voice message to the selected recipients over the local
`network, the selected recipients being enabled to audibly
`play the instant voice message, and the local server
`temporarily storing the instant voice message if a selected
`recipient is unavailable and delivering the stored instant
`voice message to the selected recipient once the selected
`recipient becomes available.
`
`
`
`While the independent claims recite similar claim language, there are
`
`significant enough differences between claim sets to preclude the argument that
`
`Claim 28 is perfectly representative of all claims. Nevertheless, Patent Owner has
`
`endeavored to show how Petitioner has not met its threshold burden with respect to
`
`claim language that appears in all the challenged claims.
`
`III. THE PETITION PRESENTS REDUNDANT GROUNDS
` Redundant and Cumulative Grounds Asserted in two Petitions
`
`As shown in the table below, Petitioner has filed two inter partes review
`
`petitions that collectively challenge the patentability of the claims of the '890 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the following redundant and cumulative combinations
`
`of references:
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`
`Reference(s)
`Vuori4 and Väänänen5
`
`Vuori and Väänänen, and Deshpande6
`
`Vuori and Väänänen and Abburi7
`
`Claims
`1-3, 5, 14, 15,17,
`19, 28, 29, 31, 33,
`40, 42, 51, 53, 62,
`and 64
`4, 18, 52, and 63
`
`6, 20, 34, 43, 54,
`and 65
`68
`
`Vuori and Väänänen and Abburi and
`Daniell8
`Malik9 and Väänänen
`
`1-3, 5, 14, 15,17,
`19, 28, 29, 31, 33,
`40, 42, 51, 53, 62,
`and 64
`4, 18, 52, and 63 Malik and Väänänen, and Deshpande
`
`
`
`Petition Ground
`IPR2017-
`1
`00220
`
`IPR2017-
`00220
`IPR2017-
`00220
`IPR2017-
`00220
`IPR2017-
`00221
`
`IPR2017-
`00221
`IPR2017-
`00221
`IPR2017-
`00221
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`6, 20, 34, 43, 54,
`and 65
`68
`
`Malik and Väänänen and Abburi
`
`Malik and Väänänen and Abburi and
`Daniell
`
`
`
`The Redundant Challenges Are Not Entitled to Consideration
`
`The Board has long held that multiple grounds for unpatentability for the
`
`same claim will not be considered unless the petition itself explains the relative
`
`strengths and weaknesses of each ground. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive
`
`
`4 Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0146097 (“Vuori”).
`5 Ex. 1008, U.S. Patent No. 7,218,919 (“Väänänen”).
`6 Ex. 1009, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0046273 (“Deshpande”).
`7 Ex. 1015, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0147512 (“Abburi”).
`8 Ex. 1010, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0068545 (“Daniell”).
`9 Ex. 1007, U.S. Patent No. 7,123,695 (“Malik”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`Cas. Ins. Co., No. CBM2012-00003 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012), Paper 7; see also
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC et al., No. IPR2014-00570 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014),
`
`Paper 17 (“[T]he proper focus of a challenge based on multiple grounds is not
`
`simply whether a difference exists between the grounds. Rather, the petitioner must
`
`explain some meaningful advantage for proceeding on multiple grounds in terms of
`
`their variant strengths and weaknesses as applied to the challenged claim.”). This is
`
`because “numerous redundant grounds would place a significant burden on the
`
`Patent Owner and the Board, and would cause unnecessary delays,” contrary to 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.1(b), which calls for the “just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
`
`every proceeding.” Id. The Board has recognized at least two types of impermissible
`
`redundancy: horizontal and vertical. Id. at 3. The Petition presents multiple
`
`unjustified instances of both types of redundancy; and those redundant challenges
`
`are not entitled to consideration.
`
`1.
`The '220 and '221 Petitions Are Horizontally Redundant
`Petitioner chose to file two consecutive inter partes review petitions
`
`(IPR2017-0022010 and IPR2017-00221) which challenge the same claims of the
`
`same '890 Patent under redundant theories of obviousness. Even the accompanying
`
`exhibits of both petitions are identical. The redundant petitions only differ in that
`
`the co-pending '220 Petition relies on Vuori (Ex. 1005) as the primary reference,
`
`
`10 See note 1, supra.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`while the redundant '221 Petition relies, instead, on Malik (Ex. 1007) as the primary
`
`reference (even though Malik appears on the face of the '890 Patent as a reference
`
`cited by the Examiner during prosecution). Such redundancy is impermissible
`
`because Petitioner fails to explain “why each ground has strength and weakness
`
`relative to the other should both grounds be asserted for consideration.” Liberty
`
`Mutual, CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3 (emphasis original).
`
`Petitioner impermissibly seeks what the Board refers to as horizontal
`
`redundancy. Horizontal redundancy occurs when multiple references are relied upon
`
`to “provide essentially the same teaching to meet the same claim limitation, and the
`
`associated arguments do not explain why one reference more closely satisfies the
`
`claim limitation at issue in some respects than another reference, and vice versa.”
`
`Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3 (emphasis original).
`
`The Board’s unwillingness to consider references presented in a horizontally
`
`redundant manner demonstrates its aversion to art that is cumulative of other art
`
`presented to it, where the multiple references are essentially interchangeable and
`
`used to allegedly disclose the same claim features.
`
`The Board recently exercised this discretion to deny redundancy appearing
`
`within separate petitions in the “informative” decision Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive,
`
`Inc., No. IPR2014-00487 (Sept. 11, 2014), Paper 8. The petitioner had previously
`
`filed two IPR petitions challenging the same patent. The Board denied one petition
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`and instituted the other. The Board denied a third petition challenging the same
`
`patent as “essentially a duplicate” of the denied petition, despite the fact the
`
`petitioner had argued the third petition corrected deficiencies, provided new
`
`evidence and arguments, and presented grounds that were not redundant to the
`
`grounds presented in the instituted petition.
`
`It is Petitioner’s obligation to explain why the Board should institute trial on
`
`multiple redundant grounds. Liberty Mutual, CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3. As
`
`discussed herein, not only has Petitioner not met that obligation, it has not even
`
`attempted to provide explanations which would justify dedication of the Board’s
`
`resources toward analyzing references in a cumulative and redundant manner.
`
`Petitioner considers Vuori a stronger primary reference than Malik in all
`
`respects with but one exception: Petitioner concedes that Vuori “does not explicitly
`
`label any of its servers as a ‘local server.’” Pet. 4. The term “local server” only
`
`appears in independent Claims 28, 62, and dependent Claim 15. As the remainder
`
`of the challenged claims do not require a “local server,” Petitioner’s alleged
`
`justification does not apply to the redundant challenges against independent Claims
`
`1, 14, 40 and 51 and dependent Claims 2-6, 17-20, 29, 31, 33-34, 40, 42-43, 51-54,
`
`63-65, and 68 (i.e., every challenged claim other than Claims 15, 28, and 62).
`
`At best, all Petitioner has attempted to do is offer a contrived explanation for
`
`its redundancy with respect to only three of the twenty-nine claims challenged at
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`least twice in the paired '220 and '221 Petitions. That de minimus effort is
`
`insufficient. Mobotix Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc., No. IPR2013-00335 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10,
`
`2014), Paper 20 at 2-3 (finding redundant challenges are not entitled to consideration
`
`where petitioner alleges distinctions that are inapplicable to those claims).
`
`Accordingly, the unjustified redundant challenges in the present '221 Petition
`
`based primarily on Malik are not entitled to consideration.
`
`2.
`Petitioner Compounds Its Error with Vertical Redundancies
`Evidently recognizing (though unwilling to openly admit) the weakness of
`
`Malik as a primary reference, Petitioner repeatedly attempts to argue in the
`
`alternative that “[t]o the extent that Malik [or a combination including Malik] does
`
`not explicitly teach or suggest this limitation, it is taught or suggested by” one or
`
`more of the other cited references. Pet. 32, 34, 65. Petitioner’s unjustified “backup”
`
`arguments repeatedly violate the Board’s prohibition against vertical redundancy.
`
`Vertical redundancy “involves a plurality of prior art applied both in partial
`
`combination and in full combination. In the former case, fewer references than the
`
`entire combination are sufficient to render a claim obvious, and in the latter case the
`
`entire combination is relied on to render the same claim obvious.” Liberty Mut.,
`
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3. In such instances where a larger group of relied upon
`
`references and a subset thereof are both alleged to be sufficient to render a claim
`
`obvious, “[t]here must be an explanation of why the reliance in part may be the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`stronger assertion as applied in certain instances and why the reliance in whole may
`
`also be the stronger assertion in other instances.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`If one of the alternative grounds is better from all perspectives, then the Board
`
`should only consider the stronger ground and not burden the Patent Owner and the
`
`Board with the weaker ground. Further, if there is no difference in the grounds, the
`
`Petitioner should only assert one of the grounds. Id. at 12. “Only if the Petitioner
`
`reasonably articulates why each ground has strength and weakness relative to the
`
`other should both grounds be asserted for consideration.” Id.
`
`Petitioner makes no effort to explain why “the reliance in part [i.e., on Malik
`
`alone] may be the stronger assertion as applied in certain instances and why the
`
`reliance in whole [e.g., Malik as modified by another reference(s)] may also be the
`
`stronger assertion in other instances.” Id. Rather, in each instance of vertical
`
`redundancy, Petitioner simply suggests that if the Board does not buy Petitioner’s
`
`admittedly tenuous challenge based on Malik alone, then the additional reference(s)
`
`offered in a vertically redundant manner cure(s) any deficiency.
`
`The Board in Eizo Corp. v. Barco N.V.11 flatly rejected a similar attempt to
`
`hedge bets and unnecessarily multiply the work of both the Board and the Patent
`
`Owner. The Board there found insufficient the petitioner’s “conclusory assertion”
`
`that “[t]o the extent [the first prior art reference] may not explicitly teach” the
`
`
`11 IPR2014-00358, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. July 23, 2014).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`limitation, the second prior art reference “explicitly teaches this limitation.” The
`
`Board explained that “such an assertion fails to resolve the exact differences sought
`
`to be derived from” the second prior art reference. Id. (finding that petitioner had
`
`not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on that ground).
`
`Because Petitioner makes no attempt to justify its vertical redundancies, the
`
`Board should find those redundancies based on the larger group are not entitled to
`
`consideration. Regardless whether the Board considers the merits of any of
`
`Petitioner’s vertically redundant theories, the Petition still fails to present a prima
`
`facie case of obviousness for even one challenge claim, for reasons explained below.
`
` Malik is also Cumulative with the Prosecution Record
`
`Petitioner fails to mention to the Board that its reliance on Malik is also
`
`cumulative with the prosecution record. The face of the '890 Patent lists U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2007/0112925 by Malik et al. as being among the many
`
`references cited by the Examiner during prosecution. Ex. 1001. The Malik reference
`
`listed on the face of the '890 Patent was filed as a continuation of the Malik reference
`
`cited in the Petition and has the same specification.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board need not and should not second-guess
`
`issues of patentability that the Office addressed before issuing this patent.
`
`Specifically, § 325(d) authorizes the Office to reject grounds for inter partes review
`
`that seek to reargue positions previously lost:
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under
`this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take
`into account whether, and reject the petition or request because,
`the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`previously were presented to the Office.
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (emphasis added). Accordingly, § 325(d) confirms the
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Malik should be rejected as cumulative not only with Vuori
`
`cited in a co-pending '220 Petition, but also with what the Examiner had cited and
`
`considered during prosecution.
`
`It is significant that Petitioner ignores § 325(d) altogether and makes no
`
`attempt to explain why its cumulative reliance on Malik does not invoke that statute.
`
`See Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc., No.
`
`IPR2016-01450 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016), Paper 10 at 10-11 (finding the reliance
`
`on references previously presented to the Office was not entitled to consideration
`
`due to “the failure of Petitioner to address the impact of § 325(d)”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Abusive Pattern of Redundancy is Improper
`
`Petitioner has exhibited an abusive pattern of redundancy in each of the six
`
`petitions it filed the same week against the same family of patents.12 Considering
`
`those six petitions on their face, Petitioner consistently presents exactly two
`
`horizontally redundant grounds against every challenged claim (65 challenged
`
`
`12 See, e.g., IPR2017-0220, IPR2017-00221, IPR2017-00222, IPR2017-00223,
`IPR2017-00224 and IPR2017-00225.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`claims in total). That redundancy is compounded by rampant vertically redundant
`
`arguments contained within each petition (which may not be apparent on the face of
`
`the petitions). Yet in every instance Petitioner only offers an illusory explanation
`
`that merely addresses some, though not all, of the horizontal redundancies; and
`
`Petitioner makes no attempt to justify any of its vertical redundancies.
`
`Given the consistent pattern of redundancy across all six petitions, it appears
`
`as if Petitioner has the false perception that multiplying patentability challenges
`
`somehow multiplies the chances that the Board might institute trial. Or perhaps
`
`Petitioner mistakenly believes that the Board will be inclined to consider all
`
`redundant arguments and “split the baby” by instituting trial for whichever
`
`redundant argument
`
`is deemed strongest. In either case, Petitioner has
`
`misunderstood precedent.
`
`The Board does not award such gamesmanship with an increased probability
`
`of institution, but rather it repeatedly and consistently declines to consider
`
`unjustified redundant arguments altogether, for the well-articulated reasons set forth
`
`in Liberty Mutual. Even King Solomon (acting as judge) had no intention of
`
`“splitting the baby,” but rather he wisely understood that threatening such an
`
`extreme solution would expose which party was being disingenuous.
`
`The Board need not and should not consider the substantive merits of the
`
`redundant challenges in the present '221 Petition for at least the three overarching
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`reasons: (1) the present '221 Petition does not even attempt to articulate the requisite
`
`bi-directional explanation for the majority of grounds that are redundant with the
`
`co-pending '220 Petition; (2) Petitioner identifies Vuori as a stronger reference than
`
`Malik in all respects other than the non-disclosed “local server” (Pet. 3-4); (3) Malik
`
`is cumulative with the prosecution record.
`
`Notwithstanding the procedural defects identified herein, and out of an
`
`abundance of caution, Patent Owner substantively addresses below the three
`
`challenged claims for which Petitioner has attempted to provide a justification for
`
`its doubled-up redundancy—i.e., independent Claims 28, 62, and dependent Claim
`
`15. Notably, the substantive deficiencies identified herein similarly apply to most,
`
`if not all, of the other challenged claims for which Petitioner made no attempt to
`
`justify its redundancies—i.e., independent Claims 1, 14, 40 and 51 and dependent
`
`Claims 2-6, 17-20, 29, 31, 33-34, 40, 42-43, 51-54, 63-65, and 68.
`
`IV. NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS IS UNPATENTABLE
`As explained above, Patent Owner only substantively addresses herein those
`
`challenged claims for which Petitioner has attempted to provide a justification for
`
`its redundancy with respect to the co-pending '220 Petition—i.e., independent
`
`Claims 28, 62, and dependent Claim 15 challenged in Ground 1.
`
`Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish they are entitled to their
`
`requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Because the Petition only presents theories
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`of obviousness, Petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that at least one
`
`of the challenged patent claims would have been obvious in view of the art cited in
`
`the Petition. Petitioner “must specify where each element of the claim is found in
`
`the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`The Board should reject any non-redundant, non-cumulative grounds that remain (if
`
`any) because Petitioner fails to meet this burden.13
`
` No Claim Construction Needed for “External Network”
`
`Petitioner seeks to construe only a single term, “external network,” as recited
`
`in independent Claims 14, 28, 51, and 62. This term requires no construction,
`
`however, because the claim language already expressly defines “external network”
`
`by reciting that it must be “outside the local network.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 25:25-26.
`
`Contrary to that straightforward and definitive context, Petitioner seeks to
`
`ambiguously construe “external network” to mean, instead, “a network that is outside
`
`another network” in general—i.e., as opposed to “outside the local network” in
`
`particular. Confusingly, the claimed “local network” would also qualify as an
`
`“external network” within Petitioner’s proposed construction because it is, by
`
`definition, outside the external network and therefore “outside another network.”
`
`
`13 While certain deficiencies in the Petition are addressed herein, Patent Owner
`hereby expressly reserves the right to address other deficiencies of the Petition in a
`full Response (and with the support of its own expert) if an inter partes review is
`instituted.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221
`U.S. Patent 7,535,890
`Indeed, literally every network ever created is “outside” at least one other respective
`
`network, and thus Petitioner’s proposed definition potentially reads out the “external”
`
`qualifier altogether and risks expanding this term to simply mean a “network.”
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed construction should be rejected as
`
`unnecessarily injecting ambiguity for a term that is already clearly defined. See
`
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2015-00353 (P.T.A.B. June 25,
`
`2015), Paper 9 (declining to adopt proposed claim construction that would render
`
`other cla
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
