`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 22
`
`
`
`
` Entered: February 19, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`____________
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner, Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., filed a Request for
`Rehearing (Paper 21, “Req. Reh’g”) of our Final Written Decision (Paper
`20, “Decision” or “Dec.”) addressing the patentability of claims 1–27 of
`U.S. Patent 6,622,018 (Ex. 1001, “the ’018 patent”). In its Request, Patent
`Owner seeks reconsideration of our Final Written Decision. Req. Reh’g 1.
`For the reasons provided below, Patent Owner’s Request is denied.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the
`party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where
`each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party
`challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be
`modified. Id.
`In our Decision, we concluded Petitioner had met its burden of
`showing claims 1–7, 9, and 10 would have been obvious over Ben-Ze’ev
`and Idiot’s Guide; claim 8 would have been obvious over Ben-Ze’ev, Idiot’s
`Guide, and Dara-Abrams; claims 11–17, 19–25, and 27 would have been
`obvious over Ben-Ze’ev, Idiot’s Guide, and Osterhout; and claims 18 and 26
`would have been obvious over Ben-Ze’ev, Idiot’s Guide, Osterhout, and
`Dara-Abrams. Dec. 23.
`Patent Owner’s sole argument raised in contesting our determination
`is that we “overlooked or misunderstood argument and evidence presented
`during trial explaining why Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove Ben-
`Ze’ev discloses ‘broadcasting a message, said message for locating remote
`devices within range of said transceiver.’” Req. Reh’g 1. We disagree.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`Patent Owner asserts that “broadcasting” has a different meaning than
`Ben-Ze’ev’s “interrogating,” and we “have overlooked argument and
`evidence distinguishing this acknowledged understanding of broadcasting
`from interrogating.” Req. Reh’g 2. In support of this assertion, Patent
`Owner relies on the testimony and documents provided by its expert, Dr.
`Easttom. Id. at 2–5. Patent Owner also asserts that we “have overlooked the
`rebutted fact that ’018 patent disparages and distinguishes an interrogation
`approach that involves grouping devices into a network of some sort.” Id. at
`6.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive, because they are best
`characterized as disagreements with the Board’s Decision rather than
`identifying anything we misapprehended or overlooked. The Decision
`addressed Patent Owner’s arguments set forth on pages 6–11 of the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 10). See Dec. 5, 7–9. Specifically, we addressed
`Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments (Paper 10 at 6–8) as these
`arguments apply to the term “broadcasting” under the “Claim Construction”
`section of the Decision. Dec. 5. In addition, we disagreed with Patent
`Owner’s argument that “Ben-Ze’ev’s interrogation signal is not a broadcast
`message” (Paper 10 at 9) and addressed why we agreed with Petitioner and
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Houh, on this issue. Id. at 7–9. A rehearing
`request is not an opportunity to reargue issues that the Board already
`addressed.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Having considered Patent Owner’s Request, Patent Owner has not
`persuaded us, for the reasons discussed, that we misapprehended or
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`overlooked any matter. Thus, Patent Owner has not demonstrated we should
`modify our Decision with respect to any of claims 1–27.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Scott T. Jarratt
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Jamie H. McDole
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean Burdick
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`Brett Mangrum
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`James Etheridge
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Jeffrey Huang
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
