`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`M & K HOLDINGS INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00698
`Patent No. 9,197,896
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S PRELIMINARY REPLY
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPPR2018-000698
`Patent
`
`No. 9,1977,896
`
`
`PPatent Ownner invokess the doctriine of collaateral estopppel to urgge the Boarrd to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ignore tthe merits
`
`
`
`of Petitiooner’s arguument that t one of thhe prior arrt referencees at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`issue, SSole (Ex.
`
`
`
`1006), quaalifies as aa printed
`
`
`
`
`
`publicationn. Accor
`
`
`
`ding to Paatent
`
`Owner,
`
`
`
`collaterall estoppel
`
`
`
`applies bbecause a
`
`panel in
`
`
`
`two otherr proceediings,
`
`
`
`IPR201
`
`
`
`
`7-00099 aand IPR20117-00100,
`
`
`
`found thatt Petitionerr did not mmeet its buurden
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of estabblishing thaat a relatedd but different prior
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`art referennce qualifieed as a priinted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`publicattion basedd on a diffeferent recorrd. In maaking this
`
`
`
`argument,
`
`
`
`Patent Owwner
`
`
`
`mention otther subseqquent decisions in IPPR2018-000094 and IPPR2018-000095
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fails to
`
`
`
`that unddermine itss argumen
`
`
`
`
`
`t. As disccussed beloow, Patentt Owner’s
`
`
`
`
`
`argument
`
`fails
`
`
`
`for at leeast two reeasons: (1) the issuee here is noot “identiccal” to thatt in the -000099
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and -000100 IPRs; and (2) tthe decisioons in the -00099 aand -001000 IPRs aree not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“final” ffor purposes of collaateral estopppel.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`TThe Identiccality Reqquirement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PPatent Ownner conceddes that ccollateral eestoppel caannot app
`
`ly unless
`
`“the
`
`
`
`issue soought to bee precludedd is identiccal to one ppreviouslyy litigated.”” (Paper NNo. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Board authoorized Petittioner to fiile this preeliminary r
`
`
`
`
`
`eply addreessing the iissue
`
`
`
`
`
`of collaateral estopppel, limitted to fourr pages, inn an Ordeer issued JJune 29, 22018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Paper NNo. 7 at 3.))
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00698
`Patent No. 9,197,896
`
`at 28 (emphasis added).)2 Patent Owner also concedes “that a different document,
`
`WD4-v4, was at issue in the” -00099 and -00100 IPRs. (Id. at 32 (emphasis
`
`added).) The fact that a different reference is in play here means that the printed
`
`publication issue is not identical.
`
`Although both references involve JCT-VC/MPEG documents, the fact that
`
`the two references are different is important because “[t]he determination of
`
`whether a reference is a ‘printed publication’ … involves a case-by-case inquiry
`
`into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members
`
`of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations
`
`omitted) (emphasis added). Indeed, subsequent to the decisions in the -00099 and -
`
`00100 IPRs (which did not definitely rule on whether any reference qualified as
`
`prior art, but simply found a burden failure), the Board instituted review in
`
`IPR2018-00094 and IPR2018-00095, preliminarily finding that yet another JCT-
`
`VC/MPEG reference, WD4-v2, to qualify as a printed publication. See IPR2018-
`
`00094, Paper No. 6 at 25-26; IPR2018-00095, Paper No. 6 at 26-27. Patent Owner
`
`
`2 Patent Owner labeled its preliminary response as being for IPR2018-00697.
`
`However, the preliminary response is directed to the Sole reference, which is also
`
`at issue in IPR2018-00698. As such, Petitioner addresses Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments as if they had been written with respect to IPR2018-00698.
`
`2
`
`

`

` in the -00
`cannot sseriously ddispute thatt the panel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2018-000698
`Patent
`
`No. 9,1977,896
`
`
`0094 and -000095 IPRRs was awarre of
`
`
`
`
`
`the -000099 and -000100 IPRRs given thhat Petitionner identifiied them.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See IPR2
`
`018-
`
`to an inco
`
`rrect
`
`
`
`of the priinted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`00094, PPaper No. 1 at 1; IPRR2018-000095, Paper
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 1 at 1..
`
`
`
`PPatent Ownner’s suggeestion to glloss over tthe facts wwould lead
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`result thhat deprivves Petitionner of a ffair assessmment by thhe Board
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`publicattion issue
`
`
`
`here. Seee In re Freeeman, 30
`
`
`
`
`
`F.3d 14599, 1465 (FFed. Cir. 1
`
`
`
`994)
`
`
`
`(recognnizing the ““desire not
`
`
`
`
`
`to deprivee a litigant
`
`
`
`of an adeqquate day iin court” wwhen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“delineaating the issue on wwhich litigaation is, orr is not, fooreclosed”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`). As in tthe -
`
`00094
`
`
`
`and -000995 IPRs, tthe Board
`
`
`
`
`
`should asssess the
`
`
`
`merits of f whether
`
`Sole
`
`
`
`qualifiees as a printted publicaation.
`
`
`
`
`
` TII. The Finalit
`
`
`
`
`ty Requireement
`
`
`
`TThe Board
`
`
`
`has repeatedly helld that “[ff]or a juddgment to
`
`
`
`
`
`purposees of precllusion befoore the Booard, the ddecision neeeds to be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`practicaal matter,
`
`
`
`to reverssal or ammendment.”” Interthhinx, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Solutionns, LLC, CCBM2012--00007, Paaper No. 115 at 10 (JJan. 31, 22013); see
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be ‘final’’ for
`
`immune,
`
`as a
`
`
`
`v. CoreLLogic
`
`also
`
`
`
`SAP Ammerica, Incc. v. Versaata Dev. GGrp., Inc., CCBM20122-00001, Paaper No. 336 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19 (Jann 9, 20133). The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Federal CCircuit enndorsed thhe Board’ss approachh in
`
`
`
`
`
`MaxLinnear, Inc. vv. CF CREESPE LLCC, looking
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to whetheer prior B
`
`
`
`oard decissions
`
`
`
`had “suubsequentlyy been afffirmed by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[the Federral Circuitt]” to deterrmine wheether
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`those decisions wwere “bindiing . . . ass a matter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of collateeral estopppel.” 880
`
`
`
`F.3d
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00698
`Patent No. 9,197,896
`
`1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661
`
`F.3d 629, 648 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding that “the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c) applies only after all appeal rights are exhausted, including appeals to [the
`
`Federal Circuit]”). Because the decisions in the -00099 and -00100 IPRs are
`
`currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, they are not “final” for purposes of
`
`collateral estoppel. IPR2017-00099, Paper No. 33; IPR2017-00100, Paper No. 31.
`
`This approach to the question of finality makes sense in the context of an
`
`IPR—if collateral estoppel were applied here, it would have the effect of
`
`sidestepping the Federal Circuit’s review of the decisions in the -00099 and -00100
`
`IPRs. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1381
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850
`
`F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017), are not to the contrary, as neither dealt with
`
`Board decisions. In any event, given that the printed publication question in the -
`
`00099 and -00100 IPRs involved a different reference supported by a different
`
`record, as discussed above, the application of collateral estoppel would not be
`
`appropriate here.
`
`Dated: July 3, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi /
` Naveen Modi
` Reg. No. 46,224
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2018-00698
`Patent No. 9,197,896
`
`
`I hereby certify that on July 3, 2018, the foregoing Petitioner’s Preliminary
`
`Reply was served electronically, pursuant to agreement, upon the following:
`
`John A. Bauer - JABauer@mintz.com
`Kongsik Kim - KKim@mintz.com
`Jonathon P. Western - JPWestern@mintz.com
`Vincent M. Ferraro - VMFerraro@mintz.com
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`
`M&KHoldingsIPRs@mintz.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / Naveen Modi /
` Naveen Modi
` Reg. No. 46,224
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`Dated: July 3, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`