`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.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-00395
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`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 and 9 would have been obvious over Leichiner and
`
`Idiot’s Guide; claim 8 would have been obvious over Leichiner, Idiot’s
`
`Guide, and Dara-Abrams; claim 10 would have been obvious over
`
`Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and Bell; claims 11–17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27
`
`would have been obvious over Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, and Osterhout;
`
`claims 18 and 26 would have been obvious over Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide,
`
`Osterhout, and Dara-Abrams; and claims 20 and 23 would have been
`
`obvious over Leichiner, Idiot’s Guide, Osterhout, and Bell. Dec. 24.
`
`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 the
`
`conventional polling mentioned in Leichiner discloses ‘broadcasting a
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`
`
`message, said message for locating remote devices within range of said
`
`transceiver.’” Req. Reh’g 1. We disagree.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that “broadcasting” has a different meaning than
`
`Leichiner’s “polling,” and we “have overlooked argument and evidence
`
`confirming there is a meaningful distinction between broadcasting and
`
`polling.” Req. Reh’g 2. Patent Owner contends that we “overlooked certain
`
`testimony and supportive evidence offered through Uniloc’s expert, Dr.
`
`Easttom.” Id. at 2–5. Patent Owner also asserts that we “misunderstood the
`
`significance” of Leichiner’s disclosure of plural or multiple polling
`
`messages in contrast to broadcasting a message in the singular. Id. at 5–6.
`
`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. Specifically, we
`
`addressed Patent Owner’s argument that “there is a meaningful distinction
`
`between broadcasting and polling,” in the Decision. Dec. 7–8. There, we
`
`addressed why we were not persuaded by Dr. Easttom’s testimony and
`
`found that “Leichiner’s description of plural ‘polling messages’ and ‘polling
`
`to each of the controlled devices’ (Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 11, 22) does not undermine
`
`that its polling message is broadcast to multiple devices.” Id. at 8. 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
`
`overlooked any matter. Thus, Patent Owner has not demonstrated we should
`
`modify our Decision with respect to any of claims 1–27.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00395
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Jamie McDole
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Sean Burdick
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`5
`
`