`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER
`ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00681
`Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2018-00681
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`Page
`
`Sirius XM Properly Identified The RPIs ......................................................... 1
`
`Patent Owner’s Erroneous Claim Construction .............................................. 4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00681
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 5
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Med., LLC,
`2014 WL 3747610 (M.D. Fl. 2014) ...................................................................... 5
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.
`IPR2013-00453, Paper 88 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2015) ................................................. 3
`
`Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.,
`IPR2015-01538, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2016) ........................................ 1, 2, 3
`
`Galderma S.A, et al. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS, et al.,
`IPR2014-01422, Paper 14 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2015) ................................................. 1
`
`Lumentum Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) ................................................. 3
`
`Proppant Express Investments, LLC et al. v. Oren Techs., LLC,
`IPR2017-02103, Paper 8 (PTAB Jan. 10, 2018) .............................................. 3, 4
`
`RPX Corp. & Vimeo, Inc., v. Link Engine Techs. LLC,
`IPR2017-00886, Paper 11 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2017) ............................................... 4
`
`Rubicon Comms., LP, v. Lego A/S,
`IPR2016-01187, Paper 40 (PTAB Dec. 16, 2016) ............................................... 4
`
`Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. et al.,
`IPR2013-00609, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) ........................................... 2, 3
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00681
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`Exhibit 1024 Declaration of Patrick L. Donnelly
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00681
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`I.
`
`SIRIUS XM PROPERLY IDENTIFIED THE RPIS
`
`Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“Radio”) named all real parties in interest (“RPIs”) in
`
`its Petition and Patent Owner’s (“PO”) contrary arguments (Paper 8 (“Resp.”) at 4-
`
`5, 18-20) should be rejected. As explained in the accompanying declaration, Sirius
`
`XM Holdings Inc. (“Holdings”) and Liberty Media Corp. (“Liberty”) are not RPIs
`
`because they (1) do not direct or control business activities and operations of
`
`Radio; and (2) have not directed, controlled, funded (e.g., PTO or legal fees) or
`
`otherwise been involved in these proceedings. Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 3-15. Holdings is a
`
`non-operational holding company and owns all the issued and outstanding capital
`
`stock of Radio, while Liberty’s connection is even more attenuated as it merely
`
`owns 70% of the outstanding common stock of Holdings. Id., ¶¶ 3-4, 7-9.
`
`These facts align squarely with Daifuku Co., Ltd., et al. v. Murata
`
`Machinery, Ltd., IPR2015-01538, in which “a ‘holding company that merely holds
`
`ownership of its subsidiaries and conducts no independent operations’” was found
`
`not to be an RPI. Daifuku, Paper 11 at 8–9 (“The exercise or availability of
`
`general ‘control’ that stock ownership vests in stockholders…will not make one
`
`company a real party in interest of the other.”). Like in Daifuku, PO’s evidence
`
`here, at best, only “establishes a [stock ownership] relationship between parties and
`
`does not establish a relationship between Holdings and this proceeding.” Id. at 11.
`
`PO’s reliance on Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS, IPR2014-01422,
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00681
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`suggesting that an RPI is one that “has the power to ‘call the shots’” (Resp. at 14)
`
`is misleading as the Board in Daifuku explained that this is not the “complete legal
`
`principle.” Daifuku at 11. Rather, the “evidence as a whole must establish that the
`
`nonparty possessed effective control over a party’s conduct…as measured from a
`
`practical, as opposed to a purely theoretical, standpoint.” Id. Examples of such
`
`practical control include “where a liability insurer assumes the insured’s defense;
`
`where an indemnitor participates in defending an action brought against the
`
`indemnitee; and where the owner of a close corporation assumes control of
`
`litigation brought against the firm.” Id. Here, neither Holdings nor Liberty has
`
`any such “practical control” of Radio because neither controls Radio’s business
`
`activities nor has had any involvement in these proceedings. Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 3-15.
`
`Instead, PO’s arguments focus on theoretical control based on the entities
`
`having common addresses and overlapping officers disconnected from these
`
`proceedings. Resp. at 6-14. Such arguments fail as the Board and Supreme Court
`
`precedent confirm. Daifuku at 10–11 (“[E]vidence of a common address and
`
`telephone number, substantial overlap of officers, and the other evidence on which
`
`PO relies, establishes a relationship between parties; it does not establish a
`
`relationship between Daifuku Holdings and this proceeding.”).
`
`PO’s reliance on Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America
`
`Corp., IPR2013-00609, is similarly misplaced because, unlike there, Holdings and
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00681
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`Liberty are not accused of infringing the challenged patent and there is no evidence
`
`that “the non-party possesse[s] effective control from a practical standpoint.” Zoll,
`
`Paper 15 at 10; see also Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 10-15. Indeed, this is not a situation where a
`
`non-party is litigating through a proxy. Daifuku at 7 (RPI “requirement exists to
`
`ensure that a non-party is not ‘litigating through a proxy’”). There is also no
`
`evidence of blurring the lines between Radio and Holdings or Liberty of the type
`
`found in Atlanta Gas Light There, the petitioner’s officer and its parent conducted
`
`negotiations with the patent owner in the related litigation, represented himself as
`
`an officer of the parent, and the parent may have paid the IPR filing and attorney
`
`fees. Atlanta Gas Light, IPR2013-00453, Paper 88 at 9-10. No such evidence
`
`exists here connecting Radio with Liberty and Holdings and thus neither is an RPI.
`
`If the Board considers Holdings and/or Liberty to be RPIs, Petitioner seeks
`
`authorization to amend its mandatory notices without changing the Petition’s filing
`
`date consistent with the Board’s precedent that the requirements of § 312(a) are not
`
`jurisdictional. See, e.g., Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 5 (precedential opinion). The Board has routinely
`
`permitted parties to amend their mandatory notices to name additional RPIs,
`
`particularly where no evidence exists of prejudice to PO or any attempt by
`
`Petitioner to circumvent the AIA’s time bar or estoppel provisions. See, e.g.,
`
`Proppant Express Investments, LLC et al. v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2017-02103,
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00681
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`Paper 8 at 2-3; RPX Corp. & Vimeo, Inc., v. Link Engine Techs. LLC, IPR2017-
`
`00886, Paper 11 at 4; Rubicon Comms., LP, v. Lego A/S, IPR2016-01187, Paper 40
`
`at 5 (allowing RPI “correction” because it would serve “the interests of justice”
`
`and “advance the core functions” of the Trial Guide). Here, PO has not suffered
`
`and cannot seriously claim any prejudice. Further, Holdings and Liberty are not
`
`involved in the related litigation, and thus there are no § 315(b) time bar or §
`
`315(e) estoppel concerns. Accordingly, this case falls squarely within those where
`
`the Board permits parties to further identify RPIs without changing the filing date.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ERRONEOUS CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Despite PO’s suggestions to the contrary (Resp. at 34-35), the core of the
`
`claim construction dispute centers on whether the portion of the preamble reciting
`
`coding in the frequency domain (“in the direction of the frequency axis”) is
`
`limiting. It is not. PO does not dispute that this portion of the preamble has no
`
`effect on and is unrelated to the body of the claim, given that the challenged claims
`
`relate to making determinations and correcting for frequency offsets in the time
`
`domain. Instead, PO raises meritless arguments.
`
`First, PO quotes portions of the patent specification that describe both the
`
`frequency domain and the time domain. Resp. at 34-35. However, the claim
`
`language at issue only involves processing of signals in the time domain by
`
`“determining a phase difference between phases of the same carrier in different
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00681
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`symbols.” Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 64-91, 96-99. Indeed, PO offers no expert testimony or
`
`other explanation to show how encoding in the frequency axis or frequency
`
`domain can have any effect on synchronization in the time axis or time domain.
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(preamble not limiting when “deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect . . .
`
`steps of the claimed invention”).
`
`Second, PO argues for limiting this portion of the preamble because the
`
`language was added to purportedly overcome a rejection and obtain the claim’s
`
`allowance. This is not true. The claim was only allowed after the applicant added
`
`a “wherein” clause that required averaging and using the average to correct for a
`
`frequency offset. Ex. 2018 at 224-232, 265-269, 275-278. Under such
`
`circumstances, a preamble is not limiting. Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Med., LLC, 2014
`
`WL 3747610 at *4 (M.D. Fl. 2014) (“prosecution history clearly establishes that
`
`the claims were accepted prior to the [preamble] amendment” and thus “not relied
`
`upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art”).
`
`Finally, PO attacks Petitioner’s expert, claiming that the expert is being
`
`inconsistent with the patent’s specification. Yet PO only presents attorney
`
`argument divorced from the actual claim coverage and without any support from
`
`its own expert. Accordingly, the only evidence presented to the Board
`
`demonstrates that the “in the frequency axis” language cannot be limiting.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 28, 2018
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00681
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,997
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jonathan S. Caplan/
`
`Jonathan S. Caplan (Reg. No. 38,094)
`Mark Baghdassarian (pro hac vice)
`Shannon Hedvat (Reg. 68,417)
`Jeffrey H. Price (Reg. No. 69,141)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212.715.9488
`
`(Case No. IPR2018-00681)
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Sirius XM Radio Inc.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, and Exhibit thereto, was served on June 28, 2018, by filing this
`
`document through the PTAB E2E System as well as delivering via electronic mail
`
`upon the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ben J. Yorks (byorks@irell.com)
`Babak Redjaian (bredjaian@irell.com)
`David McPhie (dmcphie@irell.com)
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`FraunhoferIPRs@irell.com
`
`
`
`/Jonathan S. Caplan/
`
`Jonathan S. Caplan (Reg. No. 38,094)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212.715.9488
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`