`
`
`
`IPR2018-00082
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,088,802
`Filing Date: June 4, 1997
`Issue Date: July 11, 2000
`Title: PERIPHERAL DEVICE WITH INTEGRATED SECURITY
`FUNCTIONALITY
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00082
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00082
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR REHEARING .................................................... 1
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO
`DENY INSTITUTION .................................................................................... 1
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On April 25, 2018, the Board issued a decision instituting inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 23-25, and 38-39 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (Ex. 1001, “the ’802 Patent”). For the
`
`reasons presented herein and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests reconsideration and denial of the petition in its entirety.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR REHEARING
`
`When rehearing a decision on institution, a panel will review the decision for
`
`an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a
`
`decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not
`
`supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable
`
`judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393
`
`F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO
`DENY INSTITUTION
`
`On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the PTAB must
`
`institute (or deny) a petition for inter partes review on all challenged claims. SAS
`
`Institute Inc. v. Iancu, __ U.S. __, 2018 WL 1914661 (Apr. 24, 2018). In
`
`interpreting this all-or-nothing approach, the Board instituted this IPR on all claims
`
`despite finding that Petitioner had shown that only claims 38 and 39 had a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00082
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`reasonable likelihood of success. However, for at least the reasons set forth below,
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board should have exercised its
`
`discretion to deny institution.
`
`Petitioner no longer holds any real interest or stake in seeking invalidity of
`
`claims 38 and 39, rendering this IPR a waste of time and judicial resources.
`
`Petitioner filed this petition based on claims asserted the district court case SPEX
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation, et al., No. 8:16-cv-01799 (C.D.
`
`Cal. Filed Sept. 28, 2016). See, e.g., Ex. 2001 at 23 (showing that asserted claims
`
`1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 23-25, and 38-39 of the ’802 patent correspond directly to the
`
`Challenged Claims). Petitioner did not challenge any claims which were not
`
`asserted in the district court case. In its institution decision, the Board ruled that
`
`Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood that claims
`
`1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 23-25 were unpatentable. Paper 11 at 2. . The Board
`
`instituted this IPR because Petitioner satisfied its burden for institution on claims
`
`38 and 39 only. However, Petitioner does not have a stake in seeking invalidity of
`
`these claims. Patent Owner no longer asserts claims 38 and 39 in the district court
`
`case. It is clear that Petitioner would not have challenged claims 38 and 39 if it
`
`filed its petition today.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00082
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`The Board’s recent guidance on post-SAS procedures supports denial. On
`
`
`
`April 30, 2018, the USPTO held a “Chat with the Chief on SAS” webinar1 in
`
`which Chief Judge David Ruschke, Vice Chief Judge Tim Fink, and Vice Chief
`
`Judge Scott Weidenfeller provided guidance regarding the implications of SAS on
`
`IPR proceedings. In response to a stakeholder’s question, the judges advised that
`
`the Board could revisit an institution decision and exercise its discretion to deny
`
`institution where the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable
`
`likelihood on a majority of claims. Such is the case here.
`
`Because Petitioner has no real interest or stake in the outcome of non-
`
`asserted claims 38 and 39, judicial economy favors denial. Considering all the
`
`circumstances, denial would avoid the unnecessary consumption of judicial
`
`resources and help the Board secure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution
`
`of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny institution of the Petition in its entirety.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Peter Lambrianakos/
`
`
`1 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/chat_with_chief_sas_5.3.18.pdf
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00082
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Enrique W. Iturralde (Reg. No. 72,883)
`Back-up Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Email: eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00082
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`A copy of SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S REQUEST FOR
`
`REHEARING has been served on Petitioner’s counsel of record at the
`
`correspondence of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`Brian Buroker
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`
`Blair Silver
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
`bsilver@gibsondunn.com
`
`Rustin Mangum
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`3161 Michelson Dr.
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`rmangum@gibsondunn.com
`
`May 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/Peter Lambrianakos /
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`