`
`
`
`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 No.: 9,370,205
`Issue Date: June 21, 2016
`Title: Electronic Cigarette
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01641
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,370,205 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(A)(1) ......................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (§42.8(b)(1)) ...................................................... 6
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ............................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`Related Matters ........................................................................... 7
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Related Litigations ............................................................ 7
`
`Related Proceedings Before the Board ........................... 11
`
`Related Proceedings Before the Board ........................... 13
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................. 13
`
`Service Information ............................................................................. 14
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 14
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT
`OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. §42.104
`(B)) ................................................................................................................. 14
`
`V.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`VI. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`(“PHOSITA”) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 16
`
`VIII. THE PCT PUBLICATION ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1-22 OF
`THE 205 PATENT ........................................................................................ 16
`
`IX. THE PRIORITY DATE OF CLAIMS 1-22 OF THE 205
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 41
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Board May Rule on Priority Issues .............................................. 42
`
`Legal Standards ................................................................................... 43
`
`Statement of Facts ............................................................................... 45
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The PCT Publication ................................................................. 47
`
`New Matter Included in the Specification ................................ 52
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`
`The Priority Application Does Not Provide Written
`Support for the 205 Patent Claims ...................................................... 56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Priority Application Does Not Describe A
`Bottle-less Device As Claimed in the 205 Patent ..................... 56
`
`Controlling Federal Circuit Precedent Confirms
`That The 205 Patent Claims Lack Written
`Description Support In The Priority Application ..................... 64
`
`X.
`
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Core Survival, Inc. v. S & S Precision, LLC,
`PGR2015-00022, Paper 8 (Feb. 19, 2016) ...........................................................44
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ..................................................................18
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`No. 1:16-cv-01255 (M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-cv-02286 (C.D.
`Cal., filed April 4, 2016)) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`No. 1:16-cv-01258 (M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-cv-04534 (C.D.
`Cal., filed June 22, 2016)) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`No. 1:16-cv-1257 (M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-cv-04534 (C.D.
`Cal., filed June 22, 2016)) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`No. 1:17-cv-175 (M.D.N.C., filed March 1, 2017) ................................................ 9
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... passim
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................17
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 45, 58
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................46
`
`Munchkin, Inc., et al. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00072, Paper 28 (Final Written Decision, Apr. 21, 2014),
`aff’d, 599 Fed. Appx. 958 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................45
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... passim
`
`Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`No. 2016-1841, slip op. (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2017) ....................................... passim
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Affinity Labs. Of Texas, LLC,
`IPR2014-01181, Paper 36 (Final Written Decision, Jan. 28, 2016) ....................44
`
`Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc.,
`734 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................50
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 47, 63
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ....................................................................................... 2, 43, 56, 66
`
`35 U.S.C. § 371 ........................................................................................................46
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319.................................................................................. 1, 6, 7, 15
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
`(9th ed. Rev. 7, Nov. 2015) ...................................................................................56
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide
`77 Fed. Reg., Vol. 77, No. 157 (2012) ................................................................... 7
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.125 .....................................................................................................56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ........................................................................................... 1, 6, 14, 16
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBITS LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit 1001: U.S. Pat. No. 9,370,205
`
`Exhibit 1002: File History Excerpts for U.S. Pat. No. 9,370,205
`
`Exhibit 1003:
`
`Certified translation of WO 2007/131450 (with Chinese
`original included)
`
`Exhibit 1004: U.S. Pat. No. 8,375,957
`
`Exhibit 1005: File History Excerpts for U.S. Pat. No. 8,375,957
`
`Exhibit 1006: Declaration of Robert Sturges, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1007:
`
`Nu Mark, LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-
`01642 (PTAB, filed August 18, 2016), Paper No. 7
`
`Exhibit 1008: Translation of PCT/CN2007/001576
`
`Exhibit 1009:
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`Company, No. 1:16-cv-01258 (M.D.N.C.), Document 1
`
`Exhibit 1010: U.S. Pat. No. 8,689,805
`
`Exhibit 1011: File History for U.S. Pat. No. 8,689,805
`
`Exhibit 1012: U.S. Pat. No. 8,720,320
`
`
`
`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 of claims 1-22 of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,370,205 to Hon, titled “Electronic Cigarette” (“the 205 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.
`
`The 205 Patent claims the benefit of the May 15, 2007 filing date of
`
`PCT/CN2007/001576 (Ex.1001 at 1:6-14), which published as WO 2007/131450
`
`(“the 450 Publication” or “priority application”) (Ex.1003).1 However, the claims
`
`1 There are minor differences between the English language translations for the 450
`
`Publication and PCT/CN/2007/001576. However, for purposes of this Petition,
`
`the differences are immaterial. For the sake of convenience, Petitioner treats the
`
`certified English language translation of the 450 Publication throughout this
`
`Petition as a proxy for the PCT application, and sometime refers to the 450
`
`Publication as the “priority application” even though the PCT application is
`
`technically the priority application while the 450 Publication is the published
`
`version of the PCT application. See Ex.1003 and 1008.
`
`

`

`
`
`of the 205 Patent are not entitled to the May 15, 2007 filing date because they are
`
`broader than the invention described in the 450 Publication, and thus lack written
`
`description support. The broad claims of the 205 Patent omit a “cigarette bottle
`
`assembly,” a key component of the invention described in the 450 Publication.2
`
`Because the claims of the 205 Patent are broader than the invention described in
`
`the 450 Publication, they are not entitled to the filing date of the 450 Publication.
`
`See, e.g., PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (“a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier
`
`filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support
`
`for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. §112.”). Without
`
`the benefit of the May 15, 2007 filing date, the claims of the 205 Patent are
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by the 450 Publication.
`
`More specifically, the 450 Publication repeatedly describes the invention as
`
`an electronic cigarette that includes three key components, an atomizer assembly, a
`
`battery assembly, and a “cigarette bottle assembly,” which is inserted into an end
`
`
`2 Patent Owner contends in a co-pending district court litigation that the claims of
`
`the 205 Patent do not require a cigarette bottle assembly. Petitioner accepts
`
`Patent Owner’s position for purposes of this Petition only, and reserves the right
`
`to argue a narrower construction under the Phillips claim construction standard.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`of the atomizer assembly. The cigarette bottle assembly further includes, inter
`
`alia, a cigarette liquid bottle and cigarette liquid contained within fiber at an end of
`
`the cigarette liquid bottle. The cigarette bottle assembly is always described as
`
`part of the invention of the 450 Publication, including in the Abstract (“An
`
`emulation aerosol sucker includes a battery assembly, an atomizer assembly and a
`
`cigarette bottle assembly”), Summary of the Invention (“The present invention
`
`includes a battery assembly, an atomizer assembly and cigarette bottle assembly.”),
`
`Specific Embodiments (“. . . the present invention. . . includes a battery assembly,
`
`an atomizer assembly and a cigarette bottle assembly”), Figures, and claims (“An
`
`emulation aerosol sucker, characterized in that it includes a battery assembly, an
`
`atomizer assembly, and a cigarette bottle assembly including a cigarette liquid
`
`bottle”). See e.g., Ex.1003 at 1, 2:35-36, 4:19-20, Figs. 4, 5A-B, 6:18-19, and 7
`
`(claim 1). Nothing in the 450 Publication suggests that the inventor possessed an
`
`invention without a cigarette bottle assembly, or one that merely included
`
`cigarette-liquid containing fiber without also including a cigarette bottle assembly.
`
`In contrast to the disclosure of the 450 Publication, the claims of the 205
`
`Patent do not expressly require either a cigarette liquid bottle or a cigarette bottle
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`assembly. The broad bottle-less claims3 lack written description support in the 450
`
`Publication, which always describes the invention as having a cigarette bottle
`
`assembly, including a cigarette bottle.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Rivera Maynez Enterprises v. ITC is
`
`directly on point. Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2016-1841, slip op. (Fed. Cir.
`
`May 23, 2017). In Rivera, the specification described a “pod adaptor assembly”
`
`that included a receptacle for receiving a separate brewing “pod.” The brewing
`
`pod included brewing material, namely, a paper filter and ground coffee. Id. at 3.
`
`In an effort to cover a competitor’s pod-less device (i.e., one that had a receptacle
`
`with a built-in filter for holding coffee but no separate brewing pod), the applicant
`
`obtained claims that did not require a separate brewing pod, but instead merely
`
`required a receptacle “adapted to hold brewing material.” Id. at 5. Finding a lack
`
`of written description support for the broad pod-less claims, the Federal Circuit
`
`noted that the specification consistently described the invention as requiring a
`
`separate brewing pod. Id. at 11. The only “brewing material” described in the
`
`specification included a separate brewing pod; no pod-less “brewing material” was
`
`
`3 “Bottle-less” claims refer to claims that do not expressly require either a cigarette
`
`liquid bottle or cigarette bottle assembly.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`described.4 As the Federal Circuit concluded, nothing in the specification
`
`suggested that the inventor possessed an invention that broadly encompassed
`
`“brewing material” without a separate brewing pod. Id. at 10-13. The holding in
`
`Rivera is relevant here.
`
`Similar to the situation in Rivera, the 450 Publication always describes the
`
`invention as including a cigarette bottle assembly for liquid storage. Ex.1003, pp.
`
`1-9. The 450 Publication never describes a bottle-less liquid supply, or cigarette
`
`liquid in fiber without also including a cigarette bottle. In other words, the 450
`
`Publication never describes a bottle-less fiber for a liquid supply or otherwise
`
`conveys that the inventor was in possession of an electronic cigarette that omitted
`
`the cigarette bottle assembly. Yet, the claims of the 205 Patent broadly claim
`
`bottle-less devices that merely require a “liquid supply” (claims 1-4, 6-8), a “fiber
`
`containing cigarette liquid” or “liquid absorbed in fiber material” (claims 5 and 16-
`
`22, respectively), or no liquid storage at all (claims 9-15). But the 450 Publication
`
`never describes such bottle-less devices. Just as the broad pod-less claims lacked
`
`written description support in Rivera, the broad bottle-less claims of the 205 Patent
`
`also lack written description support in the 450 Publication.
`
`The recent Rivera decision is consistent with a long line of Federal Circuit
`
`precedent holding that the written description requirement precludes broad claims
`
`
`4 At issue in Rivera was U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320, which is attached as Ex.1012.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`from relying on the filing date of an earlier application that describes an invention
`
`that is not commensurate in scope with the broadened claims. See also ICU Med.,
`
`Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 558 F.3d 1368, 1377-1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (broad claims
`
`encompassing spike-less valves not entitled to filing date of priority application
`
`that only described valves with spikes); Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`627 F.3d 859, 871-72 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (broad claims that did not require a blue
`
`noise mask not entitled to filing date of priority application that described only a
`
`blue noise mask); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1338-39
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (broad claims encompassing multiple input members not entitled
`
`to filing date of the priority application which only described a single input
`
`member).
`
`Consistent with this Federal Circuit precedent, the written description
`
`requirement similarly deprives the broad bottle-less claims of the 205 Patent of the
`
`filing date of the 450 Publication. As such, the intervening publication of the 450
`
`Publication is anticipatory prior art to the claims of the 205 Patent.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 Matters
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending
`
`prosecution concerning the 205 Patent.
`
`a.
`
`Related Litigations
`
`Petitioner is a defendant in the following litigation involving the 205 Patent:
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:16-cv-01258
`
`(M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-cv-04534 (C.D. Cal., filed June 22, 2016)). Claims 1-
`
`22 of the 205 Patent have been asserted against the Petitioner.
`
`The above-referenced action is one of four related patent infringement
`
`actions filed by the Patent Owner against the Petitioner. In a related action,
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:16-cv-01255
`
`(M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-cv-02286 (C.D. Cal., filed April 4, 2016)), the Patent
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Owner has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,365,742; 8,490,628; 8,893,726; and
`
`8,899,239. In another related action, Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company, No. 1:16-cv-1257 (M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 2:16-cv-04534 (C.D.
`
`Cal., filed June 22, 2016)), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`9,326,548 and 9,326,549. In yet another related action, Fontem Ventures B.V. et
`
`al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:17-cv-175 (M.D.N.C., filed March 1,
`
`2017), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,375,957; 8,393,331;
`
`8,863,752; 9,32,6550; 9,326,551; 9,339,062; 9,364,027; and 9,456,632.
`
`In addition to the petitions noted below with respect to the patents in the
`
`same family as the 205 Patent, the current Petitioner has also filed petitions for IPR
`
`with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,365,742; 8,490,628; 8,893,726; 8,899,239;
`
`9,326,548; and 9,326,549.
`
`The Patent Owner has also asserted the 205 patent as well as U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,375,957, which is in the priority chain of the 205 patent, and U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,863,752, 9,326,550, 9,326,551 and 9,339,062, which share priority claims with
`
`the 205 patent, in the following additional district court proceedings in which
`
`Petitioner was not and is not a party:
`
`a.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Nu Mark
`
`LLC, No. 16-CV-1259 (M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 16-CV-4537 (C.D.
`
`Cal.));
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Nu Mark
`
`LLC, No. 16-CV-1261 (M.D.N.C.) (prior No. 16-CV-2291) (C.D.
`
`Cal.));
`
`c.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. NJOY, Inc.,
`
`No. 14-CV-1645 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`d.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. LOEC, Inc.,
`
`dba blue cigs, No. 14-CV-1648 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`e.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. CB
`
`Distributors, Inc. and DR Distributors, LLC, dba 21st Century
`
`Smoke, LLC, No. 14-CV-1649 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`f.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Vapor Corp.,
`
`No. 14-CV-1650 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`g.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Fin Branding
`
`Group, LLC and Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation, No. 14-
`
`CV-1651 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`h.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Ballantyne
`
`Brands, LLC, No. 14-CV-1652 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`i.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Spark
`
`Industries, LLC, No. 14-CV-1653 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`j.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Logic
`
`Technology Development LLC, No. 14-CV-1654 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`k.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. VMR Products,
`
`LLC, dba V2CIGS, No. 14-CV-1655 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`l.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. NJOY, Inc.,
`
`No. 14-CV-8144 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`m.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. LOEC, Inc.,
`
`dba blue cigs, No. 14-CV-8149 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`n.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. CB
`
`Distributors, Inc. and DR Distributors, LLC, dba 21st Century
`
`Smoke, LLC, No. 14-CV-8154 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`o.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Vapor Corp.,
`
`No. 14-CV-8155 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`p.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Fin Branding
`
`Group, LLC and Victory Electronic Cigarettes International Group,
`
`Ltd., No. 14-CV-8156 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`q.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Ballantyne
`
`Brands, LLC, No. 14-CV-8157 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`r.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Spark
`
`Industries, LLC, No. 14-CV-8158 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`s.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. Logic
`
`Technology Development LLC, No. 14-CV-8160 (C.D. Cal.); and
`
`t.
`
`Fontem Ventures B.V. and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. v. VMR Products,
`
`LLC, dba V2CIGS, No. 14-CV-8161 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Related Proceedings Before the Board
`
`Petitioner identifies the following related inter partes review proceedings
`
`and administrative matters:
`
`a.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957,
`
`IPR2015-00098, PTAB, filed October 21, 2014 by Petitioner Logic
`
`Technology Development, LLC;
`
`b.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957,
`
`IPR2015-01513, PTAB, filed June 26, 2015 by Petitioner JT
`
`International S.A.;
`
`c.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,863,752,
`
`IPR2015-01301, PTAB, filed May 29, 2015 by Petitioners NJOY,
`
`Inc.; CB Distributors, Inc.; DR Distributors, LLC; FIN Branding
`
`Group, LLC; Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd. f/k/a
`
`Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation; and, Logic Technology
`
`Development LLC;
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,863,752,
`
`IPR2015-01604, PTAB, filed July 20, 2015 by Petitioner JT
`
`International S.A.;
`
`e.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957,
`
`IPR2016-01307, PTAB, filed June 28, 2016 by Petitioner Nu Mark
`
`LLC;
`
`f.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,863,752,
`
`IPR2016-01309, PTAB, filed June 28, 2016 by Petitioner Nu Mark
`
`LLC;
`
`g.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,370,205,
`
`IPR2016-01642, PTAB, filed August 18, 2016 by Petitioner Nu
`
`Mark LLC;
`
`h.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,326,550,
`
`IPR2016-01707, PTAB, filed August 31, 2016 by Petitioner Nu Mark
`
`LLC;
`
`i.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,326,551,
`
`IPR2016-01706, PTAB, filed August 31, 2016 by Petitioner Nu
`
`Mark LLC;
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`j.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,339,062,
`
`IPR2016-01705, PTAB, filed August 31, 2016 by Petitioner Nu
`
`Mark LLC;
`
`k.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,326,550,
`
`IPR2017-00205, PTAB, filed November 11, 2016 by Petitioner Nu
`
`Mark LLC;
`
`l.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,339,062,
`
`IPR2017-00303, PTAB, filed November 18, 2016 by Petitioner Nu
`
`Mark LLC; and
`
`m.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,370,205,
`
`IPR2017-01642, PTAB, to be filed by Petitioner R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company.
`
`c.
`
`Related Proceedings Before the Board
`
`A pending patent application claims the benefit of the 205 patent: U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 15/158,421, filed May 18, 2016.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Reg. No. 34,167
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Suite 3600, NBC Tower
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Robert Mallin
`Reg. No. 35,596
`rmallin@brinksgilson.com
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Suite 3600, NBC Tower
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`
`
`
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`
`Scott Timmerman
`Reg. No. 55,678
`stimmerman@brinksgilson.com
`
`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
`
`Service of any documents via hand delivery, express mail or regular mail
`
`may be made to the lead and backup counsel at the postal mailing address above.
`
`Petitioner also consents to service by email at the above-designated email
`
`addresses.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the 205 Patent
`
`is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. §42.104 (B))
`
`Claims 1-22 of the 205 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 (pre-
`
`AIA) as anticipated by the 450 Publication (Ex.1003). Claims 1-22 of the 205
`
`Patent are not entitled to a priority date earlier than November 23, 2008, and
`
`therefore, the 450 Publication, which was published on November 22, 2007,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`qualifies as prior art under §102(b). This Petition is accompanied by the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges (“Sturges Decl.”). Ex.1006.
`
`Statement of Non-Redundancy: The ground for invalidity set for in this
`
`petition has not been expressly considered either in another IPR or during
`
`prosecution of the 205 patent. Similar ground to those advanced in this Petition
`
`were advanced in previous IPR2016-01642 filed by a different petitioner, but that
`
`IPR was terminated at the parties’ request prior to issuance of an institution
`
`decision.
`
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`This Petition meets the threshold requirement for inter partes review
`
`because it establishes “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§314(a). For the ground of unpatentability proposed below, there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`VI. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“PHOSITA”)
`
`The PHOSITA for the 205 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
`
`approximately 5 years of experience designing electromechanical devices,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`including those involving circuits, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer. Ex.1006 at
`
`¶¶21.
`
`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. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). For purposes
`
`of this petition only, Petitioner submits that no claim construction is required.
`
`Instead, and for purposes of this petition only, Petitioner assumes that the 205
`
`Patent claims are sufficiently broad to encompass vaporing devices that do not
`
`include a cigarette bottle assembly, as Patent Owner contends in the co-pending
`
`litigation against Petitioner. Relevant excerpts from Patent Owner’s complaint
`
`asserting the 205 Patent against Petitioner’s bottle-less devices are attached.
`
`Ex.1009, pp. 4-19. Petitioner reserves the right to argue for a narrower
`
`construction under the legal standard applicable in the co-pending district court
`
`litigation.
`
`VIII. THE PCT PUBLICATION ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1-22 OF THE 205
`PATENT
`
`The 450 Publication (Ex.1003) was published on November 22, 2007, which
`
`is more than one year prior to the effective filing date of the 205 Patent. As shown
`
`in the claim chart below, and as further explained in the accompanying Declaration
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`of Dr. Sturges, the 450 Publication discloses each and every limitation of claims 1-
`
`22. See Ex.1006 at ¶¶ 26-72.
`
`205 Patent
`Claims
`[1.Preamble] A
`vaporizing device
`comprising:
`
`
`[1.1] a battery
`assembly
`comprising a
`battery, a sensor,
`an LED and a
`micro-controller
`unit electrically
`connected to a
`circuit board
`within a tubular
`battery assembly
`housing;
`
`
`
`
`450 Publication
`
`Ex.1003 at p. 2:28-30: “The present invention is intended
`to provide an emulation aerosol sucker which has the
`effects of substituting for cigarettes to quit smoking. For the
`present application, the aerosol may be considered as a kind
`of liquid particles suspended in the air.”
`
`See Also Ex.1003 at Abstract, p.2:3-4, 2:28-30; p. 4:19-
`24, and p. 6:26-32.
`
`Ex.1006, ¶¶28,72.
`
`Ex.1003 at p. 4:19-24: “As shown in FIG. 1, the present
`invention, the appearance of which is similar to a cigarette
`inserted in a cigarette holder, includes a battery assembly,
`an atomizer assembly and a cigarette bottle assembly; an
`external thread electrode (209) is set at one end of the
`battery assembly, an internal thread electrode (302) is set
`at one end of the atomizer assembly, and the battery
`assembly and atomizer assembly are connected through
`the screwthread electrode to form a simulated cigarette
`body; the cigarette bottle assembly is inserted into the
`other end of atomizer assembly to jointly form a cigarette-
`type emulation aerosol sucker.”5
`
`
`
`Ex.1003 at p. 4:25-32: “As shown in FIG. 2A, the battery
`assembly includes an indicator lamp (202), a lithium battery
`(203), a MOSFTET circuit board (205), a sensor (207),a
`silicon rubber corrugated diaphragm (208), a first screwthread
`electrode (209), a first negative pressure cavity (210), and a
`first casing (211); the external thread electrode (209) is set
`at one end of the first casing (211); the indicator lamp (202)
`
`
`5 All emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`is installed at the other end; one side of the indicator lamp is
`covered with an indicator lamp shade (201) and a micropore
`(501) is opened on the indicator lamp shade (201); the other
`side of the indicator lamp is connected to lithium battery
`(203) and the metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect
`transistor (MOSFET) circuit board (205) in turn; the sensor
`(207) is set on the MOSFET circuit board (205); . . ..”
`
`Ex.1003 at p. 4:36-38: “Wherein: the sensor (207)
`may be a switch made of elastic alloys sheets, a linear-
`output Hall device, a semiconductor force-sensitive
`chip, a semiconductor matrix thermoelectric bridge
`chip, or a capacitive or inductive sensor. The indicator
`lamp (202) consists of two red LEDs.”
`
`Ex.1003 at p. 6:13-16: “As shown in Figure 2B,
`Embodiment 2 differs from Embodiment 1 in the following
`aspects: an MCU (206) is additionally set between the
`MOSFET circuit