`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01660
`Patent 7,161,506
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING
`GENERAL PLASTIC FACTORS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case IPR2017-01660
`
`RESPONSE ON GENERAL PLASTIC
`
`The first General Plastic factor is not dispositive, and the Board should
`consider all relevant factors in its decision.
`
`In General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`
`Paper 19 at 18 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential), the Board provided “a baseline of
`
`[seven] factors to be considered” as to “follow-on petitions” against a given patent.
`
`The premise of NetApp’s supplemental brief is that the seven General
`
`Plastic factors should be reinterpreted as a two-part test: if the first factor is not
`
`met, NetApp urges that alone “should be dispositive, and that the rest of the
`
`General Plastic factors should not outweigh this factor. . . .”. Supp. Resp. 2
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The Board has previously rejected that premise. In Samsung Electronics v.
`
`ELM 3DS Innovations, IPR2017-01305, Paper 11 at 19 (Oct. 17, 2017), the Board
`
`acknowledged that Samsung had not previously sought review of the patent, but
`
`nonetheless concluded that “the high degree of similarity” between Samsung’s
`
`petition and two prior petitions “reduce[d] the weight” of the first factor. The
`
`Board then denied institution based on its analysis of all seven factors. Id.
`
`Indeed, as the Board made clear in General Plastic, its “intent in formulating
`
`the factors was to take undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner into
`
`account.” Gen. Plastic at 17 (emphasis added). Thus the Board recognized that,
`
`“all other factors aside,” the use of “[m]ultiple, staggered petitions challenging the
`
`same patent and same claims” creates “the potential for abuse,” allows later
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01660
`
`
`RESPONSE ON GENERAL PLASTIC
`
`
`petitioners to use the Board’s prior decisions “as a roadmap,” and is “unfair to
`
`patent owners.” Id. at 17-18 (emphasis added). The Board thus noted that
`
`considering factor 3—“all other factors aside”—allows it to take these issues into
`
`account. Id. It also noted that factors 2, 4, and 5 remain similarly relevant. Id.
`
`NetApp’s request that the Board treat General Plastic’s first factor as
`
`dispositive is thus contrary to General Plastic’s express language and purpose. If
`
`the Board were to accept NetApp’s argument, it would divest itself of the
`
`discretion to deny follow-on petitions by a new petitioner that would create a
`
`significant waste of the Board’s resources and significant prejudice to patent
`
`owners, as here. The Board should not so limit its discretion, or General Plastic.
`
`II. The General Plastic factors support denial of NetApp’s delayed follow-
`on petitions, as the Board has already found in three other cases.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response presented a detailed analysis of all
`
`seven General Plastic factors, which explained when NetApp should have known
`
`of the relevant art, how long it delayed filing its petition, and that institution would
`
`waste the Board’s resources and prejudice Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 5-10.
`
`In presenting that analysis, the Preliminary Response carefully tracked two
`
`recent Board decisions that applied the General Plastic factors and declined to
`
`institute similar NetApp follow-on petitions. Id. (discussing IPR2017-01195, Paper
`
`9 (Oct. 12, 2017) (“’530 Decision”) and IPR2017-01196, Paper 10 (Oct. 13, 2017)
`
`(“’908 Decision”)). Since then—and prior to NetApp’s supplemental response
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01660
`
`
`RESPONSE ON GENERAL PLASTIC
`
`
`here—the Board subsequently denied a third NetApp follow-on petition against a
`
`Realtime patent, applying a similar General Plastic analysis. See IPR2017-01354,
`
`Paper 16 (Nov. 14, 2017) (“’728 Decision”).
`
`NetApp’s follow-on petition here should be denied for the same reasons as
`
`the Board’s decisions in the three prior cases. Indeed, NetApp’s supplemental
`
`response does not attempt to distinguish the present case from the prior decisions,
`
`but instead merely repeats arguments that the Board has already rejected.
`
`For example, NetApp’s argument that Factor 1 should be dispositive—
`
`discussed above—was rejected when NetApp previously presented it. ’728
`
`Decision at 10 (“NetApp’s argument [that Factor 1 should be dispositive] is
`
`contrary to the Board’s precedent holding that each of the seven non-exclusive
`
`General Plastic factors is to be considered and weighed according the facts of the
`
`particular case.”).
`
`Similarly, NetApp proposes that Factor 2 “weighs in favor [of] considering
`
`the Petition.” Supp. Resp. 3. But each of the three prior Board decisions has found
`
`that “Factor 2 is directed to situations in which the same petitioner files two
`
`separate petitions at different times” and is therefore “neutral” under the present
`
`circumstances.’728 Decision at 11; ’530 Decision at 10; ’908 Decision at 10.
`
`Factors 3 and 4 relate to the length of delay in Petitioner’s filing and
`
`whether that delay allowed it to consider substantive developments in the earlier
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01660
`
`
`RESPONSE ON GENERAL PLASTIC
`
`
`proceedings. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response presented a detailed timeline of
`
`when NetApp knew of the relevant art, the length of delay before filing, and the
`
`numerous developments in related proceedings that occurred during that delay.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 6-8. NetApp’s supplemental response does not contest that timeline,
`
`but instead urges that “this factor should be neutral” because “the existing IPR did
`
`not address all of the grounds of unpatentability that NetApp had identified” and
`
`that it filed “before the statutory bar.” Supp. Resp. 3-4.
`
`Contrary to NetApp’s argument, however, the Board’s prior institution
`
`denials have repeatedly found that these factors weigh against institution. ’728
`
`Decision at 11-12; ’530 Decision at 11; ’908 Decision at 10-11. Indeed, relative to
`
`those prior denials, the facts of this case weigh even more heavily against
`
`institution. That is because although NetApp knew or should have known of the
`
`relevant prior art at approximately the same time here as in the three previous
`
`cases, NetApp delayed even longer in this proceeding before filing its petition.
`
`Compare Prelim. Resp. 6 (“NetApp filed this Petition on June 22, 2017”) with ’530
`
`Decision at 12 (waiting until March 30, 2017); ’908 Decision at 12 (same); ’728
`
`Decision at 12 (waiting until May 2, 2017). And during the longer delay here,
`
`Realtime submitted additional substantive responses in related earlier-filed
`
`proceedings. See, e.g., IPR2017-00806, Paper 11 (May 22, 2017) (Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response in a proceeding against the ’506 patent challenged here).
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01660
`
`
`RESPONSE ON GENERAL PLASTIC
`
`
`Accordingly, Factors 3 and 4 weigh even more strongly against institution here
`
`than in the three prior cases where the Board denied NetApp’s petitions.
`
`Factor 5 considers NetApp’s reasons for delay, but the only explanation
`
`NetApp offers is that it filed its petitions in a “reasonable timeline” after “the
`
`district court stated that NetApp must have its own IPRs for a stay[.]” Supp. Resp.
`
`5. The Board’s three previous decisions, however, all considered that issue and
`
`faulted NetApp for waiting on the district court’s stay order. ’728 Decision at 13
`
`(“NetApp had ample opportunity to file a petition for inter partes review during
`
`the fall of 2016 and spring of 2017. . . . But instead, NetApp waited until May 2,
`
`2017, after its attempts to stay the litigation in the Eastern District of Texas were
`
`twice denied.”); ’530 Decision at 12; ’908 Decision at 13-14.
`
`Factors 6 and 7 consider prejudice to the Board. NetApp urges that “these
`
`factors weigh in favor of institution,” but the Board has found three times under
`
`similar circumstances that they do not. ’728 Decision at 13 (finding that institution
`
`would “be a significant waste of the Board’s resources”); ’530 Decision at 12-13;
`
`’908 Decision at 12-14.
`
`Giving due consideration to all seven General Plastic factors, the Board
`
`should deny this petition for the same reasons it denied the three prior petitions.
`
`Moreover, the Board should also deny the petition for the substantive reasons put
`
`forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01660
`RESPONSE ON GENERAL PLASTIC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Kayvan Noroozi
`
`William P. Rothwell, Reg. No. 72,522
`NOROOZI PC
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300
`Sugar Land, TX 77479
`
`Kayvan B. Noroozi, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`NOROOZI PC
`1299 Ocean Ave., Suite 450
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`
`Attorneys for the Patent Owner
`
`
`Date: December 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING
`
`GENERAL PLASTIC FACTORS was served electronically via e-mail on the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Diek O. Van Nort (Lead Counsel)
`Jonathan Bockman (Back-up Counsel)
`Service E-mail Address
`
`dvannort@mofo.com
`JBockman@mofo.com
`35667-506-IPR@mofo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kayvan Noroozi
`
`Kayvan B. Noroozi, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Noroozi PC
`1299 Ocean Ave., Suite 450
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 1, 2017
`
`
`
`