throbber
Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`By: Jason R. Mudd, Reg. No. 57,700
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`
`Roshan Mansinghani, Reg. No. 62,429
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`Unified Patents Inc.
`13355 Noel Road, Suite 1100
`Dallas, TX, 75240
`Telephone: (214) 945-02A00
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, D.C. 20009
`Telephone: (202) 805-8931
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2018-00067
`Patent 8,577,813
` ____________
`
` PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CORRECT A
`CLERICAL MISTAKE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c)
`
`
`
`

`

`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`
`Petitioner Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) files this motion respectfully
`
`
`
`requesting correction of a clerical mistake in the Petition filed in this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MOTION
`
`On October 16, 2017, Petitioner filed its Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1.
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813 (the “’813 Patent”). Paper 2, Petition.
`
`2.
`
`Ground 1 of
`
`the Petition challenges certain claims,
`
`including
`
`independent Claim 1, as obvious over the combination of U.S. Patent 6,016,476 by
`
`Maes et al. (“Maes”), U.S. Patent 5,870,723 by Pare et al. (“Pare”), and U.S. Patent
`
`Publication 2004/0107170 Al by Labrou et al. (“Labrou”). Petition, at 4, 7.
`
`3.
`
`Ground 2 of the Petition refers to the combination of Maes, Pare, and
`
`Labrou cited in Ground 1 and cites an additional reference, WO 2001/024123 by
`
`Burger et al. (“Burger”). Id. at 5, 45. Petitioner cites Burger in Ground 2 for its
`
`teachings of the limitations of Claims 6 and 18. Id. at 45-47. Claim 6 depends from
`
`Claim 1. EX1001, Claims 1 & 6.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 7-10 depend from Claim 6, either directly or indirectly. Id. at
`
`claims 6-10. Claims 7-9 contain limitations that Petitioner contends are taught by the
`
`primary reference, Maes, which was introduced in Ground 1 of the Petition and which
`
`is also relied upon as the primary reference in the combination proposed for Ground 2.
`
`Petition, at 30-33 (Sec. IV.A.v-Sec. IV.A.vii); id., at 45-47. Claim 10 contains
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`limitations that Petitioner contends are taught or rendered obvious by Labrou and that
`
`Petitioner contends would have been obvious to incorporate into the system of Maes,
`
`both of which are introduced in Ground 1 of the Petition. Id. at 33-34 (Sec. IV.A.viii).
`
`The combination proposed in Ground 2 also relies on Maes and Labrou, but relies
`
`exclusively on Burger for the limitations added by dependent Claim 6. Id. at 45-47.
`
`5.
`
`Between September 2017 and October 2, 2017, in the process of copying
`
`and pasting into a draft petition, associate Michelle Callaghan mistakenly transcribed
`
`prior art mappings and arguments for Maes related to Claims 7-9 and for Labrou
`
`related to Claim 10 into Ground 1 of the draft petition, instead of including these
`
`mappings and arguments in Ground 2 of the draft petition where they were intended
`
`to be inserted. See Callaghan Decl. (EX1020) at ¶¶2-5. Ms. Callaghan transmitted the
`
`draft petition with the mistake to Jason Mudd for review on October 2, 2017. See id.
`
`at ¶5. Mr. Mudd provided comments for Ms. Callaghan to incorporate into the draft
`
`petition but failed to notice the mistake. Id. at ¶6.
`
`6.
`
`On multiple dates between October 2, 2017, and the filing date of
`
`October 16, 2017, various individuals reviewed the petition without noticing Ms.
`
`Callaghan’s error. See id.
`
`7.
`
`On February 7, 2018, Ms. Callaghan first identified the mistake upon
`
`reading the Preliminary Response filed by Patent Owner Universal Secure Registry
`
`LLC (“PO”), which contended that Ground 2 contained the grounds for obviousness
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`of Claim 6 (the limitations for which Burger was cited), while Ground 1 had
`
`incorrectly included Claims 7-10, which depend directly or indirectly from Claim 6.
`
`See id. at ¶7; see also Paper 6, Preliminary Response at 23-24.
`
`8.
`
`Petitioner contacted PO via e-mail on February 16, 2018 to indicate that
`
`Petitioner intended to seek authorization to file a motion to correct the mistake, and
`
`PO requested to schedule a telephonic meet and confer with Petitioner, which was
`
`held on February 21, 2018. PO informed Petitioner on February 22, 2018 that PO
`
`intended to oppose the motion. On February 23, 2018, the parties agreed upon the
`
`content of a joint e-mail that was sent to the Board in which Petitioner requested
`
`authorization to file this motion. The Board held a conference call on February 27,
`
`2018, and the Board granted Petitioner authorization to file this motion (Paper 8).
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`Claims 7-10 were mistakenly entered under Ground 1 instead of Ground 2 in
`
`the Petition. Parts v-viii of Section V.A (Ground 1) of the Petition were intended to
`
`be written under Section V.B (Ground 2) of the Petition, after the grounds for
`
`Claim 6, from which each of Claims 7-10 depend, either directly or indirectly.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that it be allowed to correct its Petition by shifting
`
`the discussion for Claims 7-10 from Ground 1 into Ground 2, which contains the
`
`discussion for Claim 6. No text containing the discussion for Claims 7-10 is being
`
`altered except for adjusting the heading numbering. Per the Board’s request, a
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`redlined proposed Corrected Petition tracking the proposed corrections has been
`
`filed as EX1021. The proposed edits minimize the changes necessary to correct
`
`the mistake and include the following:
`
`i)
`
`correcting the chart on pages 3-4 to remove Claims 7-10 from Ground 1 and
`
`include them in Ground 2;
`
`ii) correcting the headings on pages 7 and 45 of the Petition to move Claims 7-10
`
`from Ground 1 to Ground 2;
`
`iii) moving Parts v, vi, vii, and viii (Claims 7-10) of Section V.A (Ground 1) to
`
`Section V.B (Ground 2) under the new numbered headings of Parts ii, iii, iv,
`
`and v, respectively, and re-numbering the heading for claim 18 as Part vi; and
`
`iv) updating the Table of Contents, as well as some internal cross-references to
`
`update section heading numbers.
`
`III. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`The proposed changes should be applied because they relate to a non-
`
`substantive, clerical transcription error made by a subordinate attorney that was not
`
`identified prior to filing, and Petitioner promptly sought to correct its mistake after
`
`discovering it from review of the Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c)
`
`(“A motion may be filed that seeks to correct a clerical or typographical mistake in
`
`the petition.”). The proposed changes rely on the exact same text applying Maes to
`
`dependent Claims 7-9 and applying Labrou to dependent Claim 10. That is,
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`Petitioner’s requested correction seeks to merely shift the exact same text for the
`
`sections regarding Claim 7-10 from Ground 1 into Ground 2, which had already
`
`included Maes and Labrou. Petitioner is not requesting to alter any of the text in
`
`these sections (other than updating heading numbering), and, thus, Petitioner is not
`
`requesting to make any substantive changes to arguments or citations to the applied
`
`prior art—the grounds for claims 7-10 will rise or fall based on what was already
`
`in the Petition, other than correcting the error in their placement in the Petition.
`
`See, e.g., Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Tessera Inc., IPR2013-00242, Paper 32, at 5-6
`
`(PTAB Aug. 29, 2013) (allowing correction of copying and pasting error by
`
`subordinate attorney where no new analysis was added by correction); see also id.,
`
`Paper 12, at 1.
`
`
`
`Additionally, Ground 2 of the Petition relies on Burger exclusively for
`
`teaching the limitations added by dependent Claim 6 and combines Burger with
`
`the same combination of references already relied upon in Ground 1 (Maes, Pare,
`
`and Labrou). Petition, 45-46. And the Petition already argues in Ground 2 that it
`
`would have been obvious to combine Burger with this same art. Id. Petitioner’s
`
`proposed correction does not seek to alter its motivation to combine argument.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed correction,
`
`therefore, merely seeks
`
`to correct an
`
`organizational clerical error by moving the same arguments and citations to prior
`
`art for claims 7-10 from Ground 1 into Ground 2 where they were intended to be,
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`with no substantive changes. See also, e.g., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v. Ono
`
`Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al., Case IPR2016-01217, Paper 10, at 3-4 (PTAB Oct.
`
`3, 2016) (allowing correction of petition to move inadvertent listings of challenged
`
`claims from one ground to another); see also id., Paper 8, at 2-3.
`
`
`
`Correction of this mistake will not prejudice Patent Owner or sacrifice the
`
`notice function of the Petition. Patent Owner recognized that Burger was the only
`
`reference cited for the limitations of Claim 6 and that Claims 7-10 depended from
`
`Claim 6. See Preliminary Response at 23-24. In addressing Ground 2, PO already had
`
`an opportunity to address whether Burger teaches the limitations of Claim 6 and
`
`Patent owner already provided responses to Petitioner’s substantive arguments
`
`regarding the motivation to combine Burger. Petition, at 24-26. PO also already had
`
`an opportunity to address Petitioner’s same substantive arguments regarding the art
`
`specifically applied to Claims 7-10—which are unaffected by this correction.
`
`
`
`Petitioner understands from the call with the Board that PO contends it
`
`strategically chose to rely exclusively on the mistake in the Petition for PO’s response
`
`regarding Claims 7-10, rather than present further argument regarding Claims 7-10
`
`even though it had sufficient additional word count available to do so. If the Board
`
`deems it necessary and appropriate, Petitioner would not oppose a reasonable
`
`supplemental Preliminary Response to address any prejudice alleged by PO. Per the
`
`Board’s request, Petitioner proposes that any supplement: i) be limited in scope to
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`addressing only Claims 7-10 because the correction only affects these claims, and ii)
`
`be filed within one month and be limited to no more than ten pages given the limited
`
`scope of the correction (i.e. about four full pages of text limited to Claims 7-10).
`
`
`
`Further, as discussed on the call, Petitioner has not been served with any
`
`complaint and this correction, therefore, does not implicate any 1-year time bar.
`
`Forcing Petitioner to re-file a new petition to make this correction would not only
`
`needlessly tax Board resources, it would be contrary to the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of this dispute. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); NetApp, Inc. v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2017-00276, Paper 12, at 3 (PTAB May 5, 2017).
`
`
`
`Given the clerical nature of the mistake, lack of prejudice to PO, and
`
`Petitioner’s prompt efforts to correct the issue upon its discovery, the proposed
`
`corrections are appropriate under Rule 104(c). See, e.g., ABB Inc. v. ROY-G-BIV
`
`Corp., IPR2013-00063, Paper 21, at 7 (PTAB Jan. 16, 2013) (Rule 104(c) is
`
`“remedial in nature” and should be “liberally applied”) (citing Tcherepnin v. Knight,
`
`389 U.S. 332, 336 (1967)).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`apply the above-proposed corrections to Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review. Further, Petitioner certifies the suggested correction will not cause the
`
`Petition to exceed the word count limit of 37 C.F.R. §42.24.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 2, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`BY: /s/ Jason R. Mudd
`
`
`Jason R. Mudd, Reg. No. 57,700
`Roshan Mansinghani, Reg. No. 62,429
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Previously Filed by Petitioner:
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 8,577,813 (“’813 Patent”)
`Exhibit 1002 File History for U.S. Patent 8,577,813 (“File History”)
`Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent 6,016,476 to Maes et al. (“Maes”)
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent 5,870,723 to Pare et al. (“Pare”)
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Pub. US 2004/0107170 Al to Labrou et al. (“Labrou”)
`Exhibit 1006 WO 2001/024123 to Burger et al. (“Burger”)
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent 7,865,448 to Pizarro (“Pizarro”)
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0178364 (“Weiss I”)
`Exhibit 1009 Declaration of Dr. Eric Cole (“Cole Decl.”)
`Exhibit 1010 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Eric Cole (“Cole CV”)
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Patent 5,615,277 to Hoffman (1994)
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Jin et al., Biohashing: two factor authentication featuring
`fingerprint data and
`tokenized
`random number, Pattern
`Recognition 37 (11), pp. 2245-2255 (2004) (“Jin”)
`Exhibit 1013 U.S. Patent 8,751,801 to Harris et al. (2005) (“Harris”)
`Exhibit 1014 U.S. Publication No. 2003/0219121 to van Someren (2002) (“van
`Someren”)
`Exhibit 1015 Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography, 2d Ed (1996) (“Schneier”)
`Exhibit 1016 American Bankers Association, Financial
`Institution Key
`Management (Wholesale), ANSI X9.17 (1995) (“ANSI X9.17”)
`Exhibit 1017 WO Publication No. 2001/06699 to Duane et al. (2001) (“Duane”)
`Exhibit 1018 U.S. Patent 6,950,939 to Tobin (2001) (“Tobin”)
`Exhibit 1019 U.S. Patent 4,998,279 to Weiss (1989)
`
`Currently Filed by Petitioner:
`
`Exhibit 1020 Declaration of Michelle Callaghan (“Callaghan Decl.”)
`Exhibit 1021 Redline Proposed Corrected Petition (“Corrected Petition”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Motion to Correct, IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent 8,577,813
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on March 2, 2018, a complete and entire copy
`
`of the foregoing Motion to Correct and accompanying exhibits were served on
`Patent Owner by sending via electronic mail, as consented to by Patent Owner, to
`the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`James M. Glass
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Tigran Guledjian
`Christopher A. Mathews
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Email: tigranguledjian@quinnemanuel.com
`Email: chrismathews@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`BY: /s/ Jason R. Mudd
`Jason R. Mudd, Reg. No. 57,700
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket