`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 46
`
`
` Filed: December 30, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IMPLICIT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`______________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER IMPLICIT, LLC’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING BY
`THE DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES V. ARTHREX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Background ...................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`The ’252 Patent ..................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Board Proceedings and Inventorship Questions. .................................. 5
`C.
`The Appeal and Supreme Court Decisions. .......................................... 8
`D.
`Petition for Correction Filed. ................................................................ 9
`III. Argument ....................................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 10
`B.
`The Director Should Hold this Request Pending Issuance of the
`Correction, Then this IPR Proceeding Should Be Remanded to
`the Board for Consideration Under the Corrected Inventorship. ........ 10
`1.
`A Correction of Named Inventor Has Been Filed .................... 10
`2.
`Correction of Inventorship Is Retroactive ................................ 11
`C. A Principal Officer Must Consider this Rehearing Request. .............. 15
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`Introduction
`In IPR2018-00767, Patent Owner Implicit, LLC (“Implicit”) requests
`
`Director review of the Board’s September 16, 2019, Final Written Decision (Paper
`
`40) (“Decision”) finding unpatentable the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,942,252 (Ex. 1001, “the ’252 patent”). The Board held as the linchpin of the
`
`Decision that U.S. Patent No. 7,269,338 to Janevski (“Janevski”) (Ex. 1007) was
`
`prior art, by just six days, to the provisional application resulting in the ’252 patent.
`
`Decision at 9-23.
`
`Specifically, the Board determined that the work of a company engineer—
`
`Mr. Carpenter—could not inure to the benefit of the two named inventors—
`
`Messrs. Balassanian and Bradley—in order to antedate Janevski. See id. Because
`
`of its conclusion that the source code development efforts of Mr. Carpenter were
`
`not legally attributable to the inventors named on the ’252 patent, the Board based
`
`its obviousness analysis primarily on Janevski. See id. at 5-6, 23-50.1
`
`
`1 The Board held that Petitioner demonstrated that the ’252 patent’s claims 1–3, 8,
`
`11 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Janevski and other
`
`references such as Azevado (Ex. 1010), Mills (Ex. 1011), Berthaud (Ex. 1012),
`
`and/or Eidson (Ex. 1013). Decision at 3, 53-54.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`Implicit appealed, 2 and successfully sought remand pursuant to the Federal
`
`
`
`Circuit’s decision in Arthrex. Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s remedy
`
`articulated in United States v. Arthrex Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), the Federal
`
`Circuit ordered that Implicit file its requests for Director rehearing within 30 days.
`
`Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., 2020-1173, -1174, D.I. 70 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30,
`
`2021).
`
`This request seeks Director rehearing of the Decision now that Implicit seeks
`
`to correct inventorship of the ’252 patent under 37 CFR § 1.324. On December 17,
`
`2021, Implicit separately sought to correct the ’252 patent by adding Mr. Carpenter
`
`as a co-inventor, commensurate with the conclusions of Board and its findings. See
`
`Decision at 9-23. Implicit’s Petition for Correction of Inventorship of the ’252
`
`patent, with its accompanying statements and fees, were filed with the agreement
`
`
`2 The Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2020-1173 (lead)) of the Board proceedings in
`
`IPR2018-00766 for U.S. Patent No. 7,391,791 (“the ’791 patent”), was
`
`consolidated with the appeal (No. 2020-1174) of the Board proceedings in
`
`IPR2018-00767 for U.S. Patent No. 8,942,252. Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., 2020-
`
`1173, -1174, D.I. 2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2019). Petitions to the Director are being
`
`filed in both IPRs simultaneously.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`of the currently named inventors, Mr. Balassanian and Mr. Bradley, as well as the
`
`
`
`assignee of record, Implicit.
`
`Implicit has thus pursued its statutory rights under 35 U.S.C. § 256 and met
`
`the regulatory requirements of 37 CFR § 1.324(a)-(b) to correct the ’252 patent’s
`
`inventorship. With such a change to the inventorship, Implicit would successfully
`
`antedate the Janevski reference. Significantly, corrections of named inventors
`
`under § 256 have been deemed by the Federal Circuit, district courts, and this
`
`agency to apply retroactively. See infra § III.B (collecting cases).
`
`Inasmuch as IPR2018-00767 is awaiting final agency review, Implicit
`
`respectfully requests that the Director hold this rehearing request until the
`
`correction of the ’252 patent inventorship is finalized, and then remand
`
`proceedings to the Board for further consideration of patentability.
`
`II. Background
`A. The ’252 Patent
`The ’252 patent is entitled “Method and System Synchronization of Content
`
`Rendering” and issued on January 27, 2015. Ex. 1001. The ’252 patent claims
`
`priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/341,574, filed on December 17,
`
`2001. Id. at [60].3 The problem of synchronizing the rendering of content is an old
`
`
`3 The ’252 patent is a continuation of the ’791 patent (at issue in IPR2018- 00766).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`one; multimedia presentations, for example, confronted the problems of
`
`
`
`synchronizing video, audio, and text. Id. at 1:26–31. The ’252 patent is directed to
`
`a method and system for synchronizing the rendering of content on multiple
`
`networked devices; it allows, for example, simultaneous playback of audio and/or
`
`video on multiple devices.
`
`The ’252 patent explains that different rendering devices may have different
`
`time domains that make synchronized presentation difficult, and a goal of the
`
`invention is to render multimedia presentation in a synchronized manner. Id. at
`
`1:40-42, 1:54–56. The ʼ252 patent provides a method and system for
`
`“synchronizing the rendering of content at various rendering devices.” Id. at 2:17–
`
`18. In this method, “each device has a device time and a rendering time.” Id. at
`
`2:18– 20. “The synchronization system designates one of the rendering devices as
`
`a master rendering device and designates all other rendering devices as slave
`
`rendering devices. Each slave rendering device adjusts the rendering of its content
`
`to keep it in synchronization with the master rendering device.” Id. at 2:33–38. The
`
`master rendering device sends messages with its device and rendering time to the
`
`slave devices, which determine whether they are synchronized with the master
`
`device and determine the differential if they are not synchronized. Id. at 2:38–43.
`
`The time differentials between master device time and slave device time can be
`
`smoothed using various techniques such as averaging the last few time differentials
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`using a decaying function to limit the impact of the oldest time differential. Id. at
`
`
`
`7:16–26. Once the device and rendering time differentials are known, the slave
`
`rendering devices may adjust their rendering of content as appropriate to
`
`compensate for the difference. Id. at 4:24–40.
`
`Board Proceedings and Inventorship Questions.
`B.
`On March 9, 2018, Sonos filed its petition for inter partes review of the ’252
`
`patent, alleging unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103 and relying primarily on
`
`Janevski. See supra n.1. Janevski has an effective filing date of December 11,
`
`2001—only six days before the December 17th filing of the provisional application
`
`to which the ’252 patent claims priority. Decision at 9-10; compare Ex. 1001, at
`
`[60] and Ex. 1007, at [22].
`
`Implicit argued that Janevski was not prior art to the ’252 patent. POR
`
`(Paper 9) at 14. “Prior to December 11, 2001, . . . the inventors conceived of the
`
`inventions of the Challenged Claims, and those inventions were reduced to practice
`
`in time to remove Janevski as a prior art reference.” Id.; id. at 14-31 (and exhibits).
`
`The inventions of the ’252 patent originated with BeComm’s “Juno project,”
`
`which recognized that true synchronization was an unresolved issue in the art. See
`
`POR at 19 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 26-32; Ex. 2009 at 15; Ex. 2011 at 37-38). Inventor
`
`Mr. Balassanian was the CEO of BeComm and working on the Juno project with
`
`coinventor Mr. Bradley. Id. (citing Ex. 2001, ¶32; Ex. 2011 at 8). Implicit’s briefs
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`before the Board described the activities of the two named coinventors on the ’252
`
`
`
`patent, including how they worked with the company’s Engineering Master, Mr.
`
`Carpenter, in order to implement the inventions of the claims. See id. at 14-16, 19-
`
`31. Based on these events while developing synchronization functionality—
`
`including communicating the inventions to an internal staff member for
`
`implementation—Implicit asserted that the claimed subject matter was conceived
`
`and reduced to practice prior to Janevski’s filing date of December 11, 2001. See
`
`id. at 14–31; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 6, 33, 42-47; see also Hear’g Tr. 35:2–5, 40:2–43:7.
`
`Patent Owner pointed to various corroborating materials it viewed as providing
`
`support. See, e.g., POR (Paper 9) at 19-31 and POR (IPR2018-00766, Paper 13) at
`
`18-31 (citing, e.g., Ex. 2001; Ex. 2008; Ex. 2011; Exs. 2012-13; Exs. 2015-16; Ex.
`
`2018; Exs. 2020-21; Exs. 2025-29; Ex. 2031; Exs. 2032-34; Exs. 2037-38; Ex.
`
`2056; Ex. 2060; Ex. 2063; Ex. 2065; Exs. 2074-75; Exs. 2077-78; Ex. 2080; Exs.
`
`2082-87); Decision at 19-23.4
`
`Sonos replied, however, that Implicit could not successfully antedate the
`
`’252 patent prior to the December 11, 2001, filing date of Janevski:
`
`
`4 Implicit successfully argued that the cited documentary evidence serves as
`
`corroboration because the documents were stored in a Concurrent Version System
`
`repository and time stamped when added or updated. PO Surreply 3; POR at 20.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner relies on source code
`written by a non-inventor, Mr. Guy Carpenter, to
`establish conception of the invention but that no
`evidence, other than Mr. Balassanian’s testimony, is
`presented showing that the inventors communicated the
`invention to Mr. Carpenter. Thus, Petitioner argues, the
`record is devoid of evidence that Mr. Carpenter’s work
`inured to the benefit of the inventors.
`
`Decision at 14 (citing Pet. Rep. at 9) (citing Exs. 2019, 2017, 2020 (each of which
`
`lists Mr. Carpenter as the owner)). The Board noted of the document entitled
`
`“synchronization.doc” (Ex. 2037) that it
`
`was filed on December 17, 2001, as the provisional
`application to which the ʼ252 Patent claims priority and
`which Patent Owner contends was drafted at least as
`early as December 9, 2001. The evidence shows,
`however, that the December 9 version of this document,
`which appears to be the version that was the basis for the
`provisional application, was authored by non-inventor
`Mr. Carpenter.
`
`Decision at 20. The metadata indicated that the author was listed as ‘guyc,’ which
`
`appears to identify Guy Carpenter, who wrote the source code. See id. at 20-21;
`
`Ex. 2077 at 30-35 (indicating that “guyc” created “synchronization.doc” on
`
`“Sunday, December 9, 2001”); see also Ex. 2038 (email written by Mr. Bradley,
`
`who stated that this document was written by Mr. Carpenter).
`
`But the Board ultimately found that there was no documentary evidence in
`
`the record of any communication of the invention from Messrs. Balassanian and
`
`Bradley to Mr. Carpenter, and that no one else was involved in development of the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`source code besides Mr. Carpenter. See Decision at 21-22. Given the apparent
`
`
`
`contributions of Mr. Carpenter, the Board held that Implicit failed to carry its
`
`burden that Mr. Balassanian and Mr. Bradley could be deemed by inurement to
`
`have conceived and reduced to practice the invention of the ’252 patent before
`
`December 11, 2001. Decision at 18-22. Accordingly, on September 16, 2019, the
`
`Board held that Janevski constituted prior art for its conclusions of obviousness
`
`unpatentability. Id. at 23, 53.
`
`C. The Appeal and Supreme Court Decisions.
`After the Board issued the Decision, Implicit timely filed a notice of appeal
`
`in IPR2018-00767. Notice of Appeal, Paper 41 (Nov. 8, 2019). Implicit’s opening
`
`brief at the Federal Circuit raised an Arthrex challenge regarding the
`
`constitutionality of the panel that rendered the Decision; Implicit’s follow-up
`
`motion to vacate and remand on the same grounds was granted. Implicit, LLC v.
`
`Sonos, Inc., 2020-1173, -1174, D.I. 61 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2020) (on motion,
`
`granting vacatur and remanding “to the Board for proceedings consistent with this
`
`court’s decision in Arthrex”).
`
`While the remanded cases were stayed before the USPTO, the government
`
`petitioned for a writ of certiorari. Hirshfeld v. Implicit, LLC, et al., No. 20-1631
`
`(May 21, 2021). The Supreme Court on June 21, 2021, decided the main issue,
`
`holding that inferior officers “lack[] the power under the Constitution to finally
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`resolve” patentability questions, and “must be ‘directed and supervised . . . by
`
`
`
`others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent
`
`of the Senate.’” United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1980, 1987 (2021)
`
`(citation omitted). The Court prescribed the option of Director rehearing as a
`
`remedy. Id. Implicit’s case remained pending at the Supreme Court, however, until
`
`a “GVR” in fall of 2021. Hirshfeld v. Implicit, LLC, et al., No. 20-1631 (Oct. 18,
`
`2021) (petition granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded). The Federal
`
`Circuit subsequently recalled its mandate and issued a limited remand to the
`
`Director for both IPRs, while retaining jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals,
`
`allowing Implicit to request review of the “final written decisions” in IPR2018-
`
`00766 and IPR2018-00767. Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., No. 2020-1173, -1174,
`
`D.I. 70 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2021). This request was timely filed.
`
`Petition for Correction Filed.
`D.
`Following the Federal Circuit’s order, Implicit submitted to the Director’s
`
`office a “Petition for Correction of Inventorship Under 37 CFR § 1.324” for both
`
`the ’791 and ’252 patents. The relevant petition here sought to “correct the
`
`inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,252. Specifically, addition of Guy A.
`
`Carpenter as an inventor is requested. Through error, Guy A. Carpenter was not
`
`named as an inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,252.” As required by § 1.324(b),
`
`the petitions for correction were accompanied by statements agreeing to the change
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`in inventorship, respectively signed by Guy Carpenter (being added as an
`
`
`
`inventor), Edward Balassanian and Scott Bradley (each currently named
`
`inventors), as well as the assignee, Implicit.
`
`III. Argument
`A. Legal Standard
`“The Director’s review may address any issue, including issues of fact and
`
`issues of law, and will be de novo.” See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-
`
`and-appeal-board/procedures/arthrex-qas (Question A1).
`
`B.
`
`The Director Should Hold this Request Pending Issuance of the
`Correction, Then this IPR Proceeding Should Be Remanded to
`the Board for Consideration Under the Corrected Inventorship.
`A Correction of Named Inventor Has Been Filed
`1.
`Under the applicable regulatory provision,
`
`Whenever through error a person is named in an issued
`patent as the inventor, or an inventor is not named in an
`issued patent, the Director, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256,
`may, on application of all the parties and assignees . . .
`issue a certificate naming only the actual inventor or
`inventors.
`37 CFR § 1.324(a). Implicit has now sought correction of inventorship on the ’252
`
`patent (and the ’791 patent) pursuant to § 1.324(a)-(b).
`
`The Board’s Decision identified the specific role that Mr. Carpenter played
`
`in the process of invention. See supra § II.B. While Implicit argued in the trial
`
`proceedings that the work of Mr. Carpenter, as a company employee, ought to
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`inure to the benefit of Messrs. Balassarian and Bradley as named coinventors, the
`
`
`
`Board rejected this view. See id.; Decision 19-23.
`
`In light of the Board’s determination, id., Implicit has exercised its statutory
`
`right under § 256, because the ’252 patent’s inventorship “can be corrected as
`
`provided in this section.” 35 U.S.C. § 256; cf. Patterson v. Hauck, 52 C.C.P.A.
`
`987, 997 (1965) (provisions such as § 256 “should be given a liberal construction
`
`in favor of applicants, permitting them to make such changes as more thorough
`
`consideration of facts may show to be necessary in order to comply accurately with
`
`the law in naming inventors”). Implicit obtained the signatures and agreements
`
`from the necessary entities; it has now submitted to the Director’s office all
`
`statements and fees required under 35 CFR § 1.324(b) in order to obtain a
`
`correction of inventorship by adding Mr. Carpenter to the ’252 and ’791 patents.
`
`The requests are currently pending before the Director, who alone has authority to
`
`determine whether a certificate of correction should issue for each.
`
`Correction of Inventorship Is Retroactive
`2.
`The relevant statute further specifies that “[t]he error of omitting inventors
`
`or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which
`
`such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 256. Numerous tribunals have determined that corrections of named inventorship
`
`under § 256 thus have “retroactive” effect, i.e., as if it were effective on the day the
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`patent issued.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`The SIPCO case assessing a sister provision at § 255 is instructive. There,
`
`the Board found several claims unpatentable. SIPCO argued that due to a clerical
`
`error during prosecution, the parent application was identified by the wrong
`
`number on the face of the ’780 patent, thereby rendering the priority claim
`
`defective. The Board still concluded that various claims of the ’780 patent were
`
`unpatentably obvious over the grandparent ’732 patent on the premise of the
`
`uncorrected priority date. Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, IPR2016-00984,
`
`Paper 43 at 61 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017). SIPCO then filed for typographical
`
`correction under § 255, but the certificate did not issue until months into the
`
`appeal; the Federal Circuit, however, granted patentee’s motion to remand to the
`
`Board to consider the effect of the certificate of correction that issued for the ’780
`
`patent after entry of the FWD. SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 2018-1364, D.I.
`
`29 at 2-4 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 27, 2018) (“the case is remanded for the Board to issue an
`
`order addressing what, if any, impact the certificate of correction has on its final
`
`written decision in this case”).
`
`On remand, the Board in SIPCO determined, by analysis of statutory
`
`language, that § 256 does have retroactive effect whereas § 255 does not:
`
`A comparison of § 255 with § 256 further indicates that
`§ 255 does not have retroactive effect. Section 256
`authorizes the Director to issue a certificate to correct
`named inventor errors . . . . [B]y stating that a patent shall
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`not be invalidated if inventorship is corrected, § 256
`provides for retroactive effect of a certificate correcting
`named inventorship. By stating that the error shall not
`invalidate the patent, certificates issued under this section
`have retroactive effect in general. This is in contrast
`with § 255, which does not include any similar provision.
`
`Our interpretation of § 256 as having retroactive effect is
`consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision in
`Vikase . . . [and] with the district court’s decision in
`Roche . . . .
`
`Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, IPR2016-00984, Paper 52 at 17-21 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Jan. 24, 2020) (on remand) (emphasis added) (citing Vikase Corp. v. Am. Nat’l Can
`
`Co., 261 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that Ҥ 256 provides that an
`
`error of inventorship does not invalidate the patent if such error ‘can be corrected
`
`as provided in this section’”) and Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 551
`
`F. Supp. 2d 349, 349, 355 (D.N.J. 2008) (noting distinction that under § 254 the
`
`certificate would not have retroactive effect, whereas under § 256 it would apply
`
`retroactively)); see also Southwest Software, Inc. v. Harlequin Inc., 226 F.3d 1280,
`
`1294 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (rejecting the retroactive application of a certificate of
`
`correction issued under § 254 based upon the “thereafter arising” language which is
`
`absent from § 256). The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Board without
`
`opinion. SIPCO, 2018-1364, D.I. 78 (Fed. Cir. R. 36) (Fed. Cir. Jan. 21, 2021).
`
`Thus, § 256 corrections should “have retroactive effect in general.” See
`
`SIPCO, IPR2016-00984, Paper 52 at 21. In this case, the corrected inventive entity
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`of the ’252 patent can readily swear behind Janevski’s six-day priority of
`
`
`
`December 11, 2001, based on the existing evidence of record. See supra § II.B
`
`(and cited exhibits). Accordingly, no ground of unpatentability prevails once
`
`Janevski is removed. See supra n.1.
`
`Moreover, as SIPCO demonstrates, even after-arising certificates of
`
`correction can prompt the Federal Circuit during appeal to seek the Board’s views
`
`concerning its prior patentability opinions. 5 See SIPCO, 2018-1364, D.I. at 29 at 4.
`
`The posture here—already remanded back to the Director for an Arthrex review
`
`request—permits the same analysis to occur, but even more efficiently inasmuch as
`
`the correction and rehearing petition are both already committed to the Director. 6
`
`
`5 If timing of the correction is argued to distinguish SIPCO from this case, it should
`
`be noted “that diligence is not a requirement to correct inventorship under section
`
`256.” Stark v. Advanced Mags., Inc., 119 F.3d 1551, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Section 256, on its face, does not limit the time during which inventorship can be
`
`corrected. This makes sense given the sometimes arduous process of arriving at
`
`agreement and seeking signatures in order to effect a change in inventorship. Such
`
`issues do not exist under § 255, where typographical errors are easily addressable.
`
`6 To the extent that corrections will issue during the ongoing appeal, Implicit
`
`intends to ask the court for a similar SIPCO remand and/or to take judicial notice
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`
`Implicit respectfully requests that the Director hold this rehearing request until the
`
`
`
`correction issues, at which time the retroactive effect of the corrected inventorship
`
`should be assessed by the Board on remand.
`
`C. A Principal Officer Must Consider this Rehearing Request.
`Respectfully, Implicit’s rehearing request should not be decided until a
`
`Director is appointed and confirmed. In Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. at 1985, the Supreme
`
`Court held that: “Only an officer properly appointed to a principal office may issue
`
`a final decision binding the Executive Branch . . . .”
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For these reasons, the Director should hold this rehearing request until
`
`issuance of the correction, then remand to the Board for consideration of the ’252
`
`patent’s patentability under the corrected inventorship.
`
`Dated: December 30, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Timothy P. McAnulty/
`Timothy P. McAnulty, Reg. No. 56,939
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`of them. Function Media v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1331 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(“It is proper to take judicial notice of a decision from another court or agency at
`
`any stage of the proceeding, even if it was not available to the lower court.”).
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00767
`Patent No. 8,942,252
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING BY THE DIRECTOR
`
`PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES V. ARTHREX was served electronically via
`
`email on December 30, 2021, in its entirety on the following:
`
`Rory P. Shea
`shea@ls3ip.com
`Cole B. Richter
`richter@ls3ip.com
`George I. Lee
`lee@ls3ip.com
`Michael P. Boyea
`boyea@ls3ip.com
`LEE SULLIVAN SHEA & SMITH LLP
`224 N. Desplaines St., Suite 250
`Chicago, IL 60661
`
`Petitioner has consented to service by electronic mail.
`
`
`
`
`
`/William Esper/
`William Esper
`Case Manager and PTAB Coordinator
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`Dated: December 30, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`