Filed on behalf of: Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: August 10, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2018-00821
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`_______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: August 10, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2018-00821
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`_______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00821 (USP 8,213,970)
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin Bederson In Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (“Bederson
`Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin Bederson
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0030977 (“Casey”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,386,589 (“Tanumihardja”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,232,971 (“Haynes”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (“FH”)
`
`Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions,
`submitted in AGIS Software Development LLC v. Apple Inc., No.
`2:17-cv-00516-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“ʼ970 PICs”)
`
`APPLE COMPUTER, INC., MACINTOSH HUMAN INTERFACE GUIDELINES
`(1992) (“HIG”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0103072 (“Ko”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0081011 (“Sheldon”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,271,835 (“Hoeksma")
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0135615 (“Lang”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,459,440 (“Monnes”)
`
`Benjamin B. Bederson, Fisheye Menus, PROCEEDINGS OF ACM
`SYMPOSIUM ON USER INTERFACE SOFTWARE AND TECHNOLOGY 217
`(2000)
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00821 (USP 8,213,970)
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`Donald A. Norman, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EVERYDAY THINGS,
`Chapter 1, THE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF EVERYDAY THINGS, 1-33
`(1998)
`
`Jakob Nielsen, USABILITY ENGINEERING, 129-148 (1993)
`
`Ben Shneiderman, DESIGNING THE USER INTERFACE, STRATEGIES
`FOR EFFECTIVE HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION (3rd ed. 1998)
`
`Derek Ball & Dayton Foster, HOW TO DO EVERYTHING WITH YOUR
`TREO 600, 25-30 (2004)
`
`Redline comparison between the specifications of U.S. Application
`No. 11/612,830 and U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (“830-122
`Comparison”)
`
`Claim Construction Order, Automated Packaging Sys. v. Free Flow
`Packaging Int’l, No. 18-cv-00356, ECF No. 217 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2,
`2018)
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00821 (USP 8,213,970)
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Petitioner provides the following citations to legal authority regarding “the
`
`issue of whether a Petitioner must have a subjective belief that the claim
`
`constructions presented in the Petition are correct.” Paper 7 at 2-3 (Order).
`
`Western Digital Corp. v. Spex Techs, Inc., IPR2018-00084, Paper 14 at 10-12
`
`(April 25, 2018) (rejecting the same argument made by the same patent owner
`
`counsel as here, and distinguishing Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas LLC,
`
`Paper 12, IPR2016-00422 (July 6, 2016)).
`
`Automated Packaging Sys. v. Free Flow Packaging Int’l, No. 18-cv-00356, slip op.
`
`at 4-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2018) (“failure to advance a particular construction” or
`
`argue indefiniteness during IPR is not probative during Markman) (Ex. 1021).
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(3) (“A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as
`
`it has, regardless of consistency.”); see also Bancorp Services v. Sun Life Assur.
`
`Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`8(d)(3), and holding the party was entitled to take inconsistent positions); Water
`
`Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 665-666 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (party entitled
`
`to take inconsistent positions, and judicial estoppel cannot apply unless an
`
`inconsistent position has been successful).
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(claims are indefinite, and in the alternative, anticipated); Ethicon Endo-Surgery,
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00821 (USP 8,213,970)
`
`Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims are indefinite, and in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`the alternative, not infringed); Nippon Suisan Kaisha Ltd. v. Pronova Biopharma
`
`Norge, AS, PGR2017-0033, Paper 7 (Jan. 17, 2018) (instituting review of
`
`inconsistent alternative positions of indefiniteness and anticipation/obviousness);
`
`B.R.A.H.M.S. GMBH v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., PGR2016-00018, Paper 8
`
`(Nov. 2, 2016) (same); eBay Inc. v. Purple Leaf, LLC, CBM2015-00052, Paper 22
`
`(July 30, 2015) (same).
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2141-42 (2016) (canceling a
`
`claim for indefiniteness in an IPR is precluded by statute); Broadsign Int’l v. T-Rex
`
`Property, IPR2017-00006, Paper 2 (Petition) at 13 n.2 (Oct. 6, 2016) (patent
`
`owner’s counsel in this case correctly recognizing “the limited scope of inter partes
`
`review,” proposing claim constructions “solely for the purposes of this IPR,” and
`
`“reserve[ing] the right to propose alternative claim constructions in other
`
`proceedings) (institution denied for other reasons).
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (Board required to construe claim terms only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy.).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00821 (USP 8,213,970)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: August 10, 2018
`
`
`
`By: / Matthew J. Moore /
`
`Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012)
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33,144)
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`David A. Zucker (Reg. No. 74,095)
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`202.637.2200
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`bob.steinberg@lw.com
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`david.zucker@lw.com
`
`Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018)
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.470.4848
`lisa.nguyen@lw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Apple Inc.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00821 (USP 8,213,970)
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 10th day of August,
`
`2018, a copy of Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`and Exhibit 1021 were served by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s lead and
`
`backup counsel at the following email addresses:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Enrique W. Iturralde (Reg. No. 72,883)
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`212.209.4800
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / Matthew J. Moore /
`
`Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012)
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`202.637.2200
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
