`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________
`
`IPR2018-00274
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`___________________
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00274
`Patent 7,834,586
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board should expunge the rehearing request because Petitioner has not
`
`shown good cause for its untimely filing or its failure to seek the Board's
`
`authorization before filing its rehearing request 12 days after the deadline.
`
`I. Petitioner Has Not Shown Good Cause For Its Untimely Filing
`As the Board notes in the order to show cause, the deadline for Petitioner to
`
`file its rehearing request was September 28, 2018. Paper 19 at 2. The response
`
`and the supporting declaration (collectively, "the Response") imply that Petitioner
`
`timely filed its request on the deadline. Paper 20; Paper 21, ¶¶ 4-6.1 But the
`
`"automatic filing confirmation" Petitioner received from the PTAB actually stated
`
`"THERE WERE NO DOUCMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THIS REQUEST."
`
`Paper 21 at 6, Exhibit A (9/28/2018 PTABE2E_System email). This should have
`
`alerted Petitioner that its filing was defective and ineffective. The Response does
`
`not explain why Petitioner did not immediately correct the filing given the notice.
`
`
`
`
`The Response does not assert, let alone provide any evidence, that the failure
`
`to attach the request was due to E2E system malfunctioning. Paper 20. But even if
`
`E2E system malfunctioning had caused the problem, Petitioner should have
`
`emailed the Board explaining the situation and requested an extension, followed by
`
`
`1 Paper 21 should have been filed as an exhibit.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00274
`Patent 7,834,586
`a later-filed motion requesting acceptance of the submission once PTAB E2E
`
`
`
`
`
`became available. See answers to "PTAB E2E Frequently Asked Questions" A2
`
`and A3 at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-
`
`appeal-board/ptab-e2e-frequently-asked-questions. Petitioner did not do so and
`
`has provided no reason why it did not follow the established procedure.
`
`The Response is also silent on when Petitioner first became aware of the
`
`missing attachment or why it waited until October 10, 2018 to submit the rehearing
`
`request. Papers 20; Paper 21, ¶¶ 9-11. Instead, the Response merely states that
`
`Petitioner received a telephone message from the Board about the missing
`
`attachment, without explaining when this message was received or how long
`
`Petitioner had waited before acting in response to the message. Id. This apparent
`
`lack of diligence is insufficient to justify the delay in filing.
`
`The Response does not contend that the rehearing request was uploaded to
`
`the E2E system by September 28, 2018. Instead, it implies that the Board should
`
`accept the untimely filing because Patent Owner was served a copy of the
`
`rehearing request by the deadline. Papers 20; Paper 21, ¶¶ 7-8. But the rule states
`
`"[a]ny [rehearing] request must be filed . . . [w]ithin 30 days of the entry . . . of a
`
`decision not to institute a trial." 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). That is, the deadline is
`
`based on filing, not serving, of the request. This makes sense: unlike the
`
`institution decision where Patent Owner's Preliminary Response may affect the
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00274
`Patent 7,834,586
`outcome, Patent Owner generally plays no role in how the Board decides a
`
`
`
`
`
`rehearing request. Hence, serving Patent Owner a copy of the request does not
`
`advance the action and does not excuse Petitioner's otherwise late filing.
`
`II. Petitioner Has Failed To Show Any Reason For Filing The Rehearing
`Request After The Deadline Without The Board's Prior Authorization
`The Response does not assert that Petitioner attempted to obtain the Board's
`
`authorization before its late filing on October 10, 2018. Rather, Petitioner just
`
`uploaded the request on October 10, 2018 and hoped that the Board would accord
`
`it with a filing date of September 28, 2018. The proper procedure when Petitioner
`
`noticed a defective filing, however, was for Petitioner to show "good cause" and to
`
`request that the Board exercise its discretion to waive the regulatory deadline and
`
`allow Petitioner to file the rehearing request outside of the time provided by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(2) "in the interests of justice." 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3); H&S Mfg.
`
`Co., Inc. v. Oxbo Int'l Corp., IPR2016-00950, Paper 11 at 2 (PTAB, Dec. 7, 2016)
`
`(denying Petitioner's request to file an untimely rehearing request). Petitioner does
`
`not explain why it did not follow this established procedure. Nor has Petitioner
`
`shown any good cause for the Board to grant any relief in the interests of justice.
`
`In sum, the Board should expunge the untimely rehearing request.
`
`Dated: October 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Hong Zhong/
`
`
`H. Annita Zhong, Reg. No. 66,530
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00274
`Patent 7,834,586
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on October 23,
`
`2018, a copy of the foregoing documents OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S
`
`RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE were served by electronic mail, as
`
`agreed to by the parties, upon the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
`
`Charles M. McMahon
`cmcmahon@mwe.com
`
`Brian A. Jones
`bajones@mwe.com
`
`Thomas DaMario
`tdamario@mwe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Susan M. Langworthy/
`
`Susan Langworthy
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`