From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Dear Sir/Madam, 
`
`James Murphy <jpmurphy@polsinelli.com>
`Thursday, February 28, 2019 6:39 PM
`Precedential_Opinion_Panel_Request
`Matthew R. Frontz; Ryan Murphy; 'mjohnson@rennerotto.com';
`'kfleming@rennerotto.com'; 'lcarrion@rennerotto.com'
`IPR2017-02016, -02018; Request for Precedential Opinion Panel Review
`IPR2017-02016 Rehearing Request.pdf; IPR2017-02018 Rehearing Request.pdf
`
`Petitioner in the above proceedings requests review of the attached rehearing requests, filed today, by the Precedential 
`Opinion Panel. Based on my professional judgment, I believe this case requires an answer to one or more precedent‐
`setting questions of exceptional importance:  
`
`1. Should the Federal Circuit’s holding in Click‐to‐Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which
`involved interpretation of “served with a complaint” in 35 U.S.C § 315(b), be extended to “filed a civil action” in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(a)(1) such that an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity that is dismissed without prejudice prior to filing an
`inter partes review petition would bar a petitioner from seeking inter partes review?
`
`2. Does an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity that the Patent Owner has asserted lacks subject matter
`jurisdiction bar a petitioner from seeking inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1)?
`
`The Precedential Opinion Panel may be convened to address issues of exceptional importance regarding statutes or 
`issues of broad applicability to the Board.  PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 2, Rev. 10  as Section II(A).   The 
`resolution of the issues in this case raises both of these concerns. This case involves issues of first impression in the 
`statutory interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1), particularly in light of the Federal Circuit’s holding on 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) 
`in Click‐to‐Call.  The resolution of these issues extends beyond the instant IPR proceedings as other pending PTAB cases 
`are examining some of these same issues and there are likely to be many others in the future given the widespread use 
`of declaratory judgments and dismissals without prejudice in district court litigation.  See e.g., Avigilon Corporation et al 
`v. Canon Inc., IPR2018‐01626, ‐01627, PTAB Order issued Jan. 9, 2019 (authorizing additional briefing to address the
`impact of Click‐to‐Call on §315(a)(1)).
`
`Signed, 
`/James P. Murphy/ 
`ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR PETITIONER RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS INC. 
`
`Regards, 
`James Murphy 
`Shareholder
`
`jpmurphy@polsinelli.com 
`713.374.1631 
`1000 Louisiana Street
`Sixty-Fourth Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`polsinelli.com
`
`IPR2017-02016
`Ex. 3001 p. 1 of 2
`
`1
`
`

`

`Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
`
`This electronic mail message contains CONFIDENTIAL information which is (a) ATTORNEY - CLIENT PRIVILEGED
`COMMUNICATION, WORK PRODUCT, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM
`DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named herein. If you are not an Addressee, or the
`person responsible for delivering this to an Addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this
`message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please reply to the sender and take the
`steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system.
`
`IPR2017-02016
`Ex. 3001 p. 2 of 2
`
`2
`
`