throbber
Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ZTE (USA), INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
` Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTION AND MOTION TO TERMINATE
`PROCEEDINGS UNDER UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE
`II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Dr. Gary L. Blank [WITHDRAWN]
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gary L. Blank CV [WITHDRAWN]
`
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order (Doc. 117), Cywee
`Group Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 2:17-CV-
`00140-WCB-RSP (E.D. Tex., July 9, 2018)
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D., in Support
`of Patent Owner Response
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D.
`
`Order (Doc. 153), Cywee Group Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Ltd., C.A. No. 2:17-CV-00140-WCB-RSP (E.D. Tex., Aug.
`14, 2018)
`
`Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 55), CyWee Group Ltd. v.
`Motorola Mobility LLC, C.A. No. 17-780-RGA (D. Del.,
`Dec. 21, 2018)
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 10/396,439
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 12/413,722
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 13/367,058
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D., in Support
`of Motion to Amend
`
`File History of U.S. Provisional Application 61/292,558
`
`Google’s Responses to CyWee’s Requests for Production,
`CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00571 (D.
`Del.) (Sep. 4, 2018)
`
`Google/Samsung 2011-2012 Mobile Application Distribution
`Agreement (Android)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`CyWee Group, Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., C.A. No. 2:17-
`CV-00140-WCB-RSP, Doc. 1-1 (Exhibit A, Infringement
`Claim Chart)
`
`Web Print-Out “Introducing PAX: the Android Networked
`Cross-License Agreement,” available at
`<https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-
`policy/introducing-pax-android-networked-cross-license-
`agreement/>
`
`List of IPR Petitions Filed against Seven Networks, LLC
`
`Demonstrative: Relationship of Android Defendants
`
`Transcript of Call Authorizing Patent Owner to File Motion
`to Terminate (July 8, 2019)
`
`Declaration of Shun-nan Liou
`
`CyWee, Where Technology Entertains 2009.09
`
`JIL Game System Hardware Specification Ver. 1.5
`
`JIL Phone Bill of Materials (May 24, 2010)
`
`Photographs of JIL Phone Prototype
`
`CyWee Phone API Reference
`
`CyWee Motion Fusion Solution
`
`CyWee Where technology entertains Technical Presentation:
`Motion Technology and Gaming Applications
`
`July 29, 2009 email to James Shen, Qualcomm
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`Attachment to July 29, 2009 email to James Shen,
`Qualcomm
`
`CyWee/Qualcomm Mutual NDA (April 23, 2008)
`
`Attitude.cpp file (last modified February 12, 2010)
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D., in Support
`of Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Motion to Amend
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Prof. Majid Sarrafzadeh (July 24,
`2019)
`
`Attitude.cpp file, with Line Numbers (last modified February
`12, 2010)
`
`Amended Notice of Deposition of Collin W. Park
`(previously filed as Paper 62)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, CyWee Group Ltd., v.
`Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2;17-cv-00140-
`WCB-RSP, Dkt. 1 (filed Feb. 17, 2017)
`
`Petition, LG Elec. Inc. v. CyWee Group Ltd., IPR2019-
`00559, Paper 1 (Jan. 10, 2019)
`
`Petition, LG Elec. Inc. v. CyWee Group Ltd., IPR2019-
`00560, Paper 1 (Jan. 10, 2019)
`
`Petition, LG Elec. Inc. v. CyWee Group Ltd., IPR2019-
`01203, Paper 1 (June 15, 2019)
`
`Web Print-Out “Introducing PAX: the Android Networked
`Cross-License Agreement,” available at
`<https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/publicpolicy/
`introducing-pax-android-networked-cross-
`licenseagreement/>
`(previously filed as Ex. 2016)
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`
`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`Declaration of Collin W. Park
`(previously filed as Ex. 1038)
`
`Web Print-Out, Morgan Lewis, Lawflash Article “Statutory
`Time Bar Applies to Privity and RPI Relationships Arising
`After Filing of IPR Petition,” (June 27, 2019), available at
`< https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/statutory-time-
`barapplies-
`to-privity-rpi-relationships-arising-after-ipr-petitionfiling>
`
`CyWee Litigation Timeline
`
`CyWee Group, Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc., et al., Exemplary
`Claim Chart
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Collin W. Park (August 21,
`2019)
`
`Google U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 4,692,657, Statement of
`Use (filed December 2, 2014)
`
`Aug. 16-20, 2019, Correspondence between C. Key and M.
`Smith
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. Filings for ZNFG011C (Google Pixel 2
`XL), External Photographs (submitted Sep. 11, 2017)
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`
`IPR 000013-17
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`
`IPR 000039-43
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`, ZTE-IPR 000001-12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, ZTE-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`
`, ZTE-IPR 000020-35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, ZTE-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`
`REDACTED
`, ZTE-IPR 000045-67
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`, ZTE-IPR 000069-94
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`
`, ZTE-IPR 000141-149
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`2057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Privilege Log for Petitioner ZTE (USA) Inc., ZTE (USA) Inc.
`v. CyWee Group Ltd., IPR2019-00143
`
`Transcript of November 4, 2019 Hearing
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s email dated December 3, 2019, Patent Owner CyWee
`
`Group, Inc. hereby submits its Patent Owner’s Objection and Motion to Terminate
`
`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`Proceedings Under United States Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.
`
`I.
`
`The Panel is Composed of Unconstitutionally Appointed Officers
`
`On October 31, 2019, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion
`
`in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140, 2019 WL 5616010 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Oct. 31, 2019). In Arthrex, the Federal Circuit held “that APJs1 are principal
`
`officers under Title 35 as currently constituted. As such, they must be appointed by
`
`the President and confirmed by the Senate; because they are not, the current structure
`
`of the Board violates the Appointments Clause.” Arthrex, Inc., 2019 WL 5616010,
`
`at *8.
`
`The Director of the USPTO has unconditionally delegated the authority to
`
`make institution decisions to APJs. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (“The Board institutes the
`
`trial on behalf of the Director.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (“When instituting inter partes
`
`review, the Board may authorize the review to proceed on all or some of the
`
`challenged claims and on all or some of the grounds of unpatentability asserted for
`
`each claim.”). The regulations provide no mechanism for oversight by the Director
`
`(or any other presidentially-appointed officer), the ability for the parties to appeal
`
`the Board’s decision to the Director, or the ability for the Director to overturn an
`
`
`1 APJs refers to Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`
`
`institution decision by the Board. In this case, the institution determination was made
`
`by the Board, and the Board alone without any right of appeal to a constitutionally
`
`appointed officer. Effectively, the Director has unconstitutionally abrogated any
`
`responsibility for institution determinations and delegated the Board’s APJs
`
`complete and unchecked power to make institution determinations.
`
`The Board’s lack of oversight when rendering institution decisions is no
`
`different than the rendering of final written decisions. As the Federal Circuit noted
`
`in Arthrex, “[t]he lack of any presidentially-appointed officer who can review,
`
`vacate, or correct decisions by the APJs combined with the limited removal power
`
`lead us to conclude . . . [that APJs] are principal officers.” Arthrex, Inc., 2019 WL
`
`5616010, at *8. There is no mechanism under the regulations for the Director to
`
`“review, vacate, or correct [institution] decisions by the APJs” so when rendering
`
`institution decisions APJs are acting as principal officers. Therefore, the unchecked
`
`delegation of authority to APJs renders institution determinations under the AIA
`
`unconstitutional as applied.
`
`II. Administrative Patent Judges are Judicial Officers
`
`Inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) replaced the previous reexamination procedure
`
`by converting the process from an examinational to an adjudicative one. See Abbott
`
`Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting H.R. Rep. No.
`
`112–98, pt. 1, at 46–47 (2011)). An adjudicative proceeding is necessarily presided
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`
`
`over by a judicial officer. APJs are, by the act of Congress that created them, judicial
`
`officers of the United States. The Federal Circuit confirmed APJs’ status as judicial
`
`officers in Abbot Labs. To hold otherwise would make APJs simply re-titled patent
`
`examiners.
`
`III.
`
`Judicial Officers’ Actions are Void if Not Constitutionally
`Appointed
`
`
`
`In Arthrex, the Federal Circuit effectively applied the de facto officer doctrine
`
`in an attempt to save all rulings made by the original APJ panel that was
`
`unconstitutionally appointed by remanding the case to the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”) with instructions that a new APJ panel properly appointed could
`
`decide the case on the same record. See Arthrex, Inc., 2019 WL 5616010, at *12
`
`(“Finally, we see no error in the new panel proceeding on the existing written record
`
`but leave to the Board’s sound discretion whether it should allow additional briefing
`
`or reopen the record in any individual case.”). The Federal Circuit’s allowance of
`
`the prior orders and decisions of the unconstitutionally appointed APJ panel to stand
`
`(but not the final written decision) was effectively a ruling that the de facto officer
`
`doctrine applied to all such non-final rulings of unconstitutionally appointed APJ
`
`panels.
`
`But the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the de facto
`
`officer doctrine does not apply to judicial officers of the United States. Nguyen v
`
`United States, 539 U.S. 69, 77 (2003). The Nguyen holding is consistent with and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`
`
`relies upon Ryder v United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). The rule that the de facto
`
`officer doctrine does not apply to administrative law judges (“ALJs”) was made clear
`
`in Lucia v. S.E.C., 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055–56 (2018). APJs should not be treated any
`
`differently than their ALJ brethren.
`
`The Federal Circuit has unconditionally ruled the decision to institute this IPR
`
`was made by an unconstitutionally appointed APJ panel. That institution decision is
`
`therefore void from its inception. Nguyen, 539 U.S. at 78 (“This Court succinctly
`
`observed: ‘If the statute made him incompetent to sit at the hearing, the decree in
`
`which he took part was unlawful, and perhaps absolutely void, and should certainly
`
`be set aside or quashed by any court having authority to review it by appeal, error
`
`or certiorari.’”) (citing American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K.W.R. Co., 148
`
`U.S. 372, 387 (1893)) (emphasis added).
`
`IV. Remand is the Only Option and Renders the Proceedings Time-
`Barred
`
`
`
`The only option when a judicial officer is found unconstitutionally appointed
`
`is a remand to have the matter reheard in its entirety by a duly appointed officer in
`
`conformity with the Constitution. Nguyen, 539 U.S. at 83; Lucia, 138 S. Ct. at 2055–
`
`56. In this case, however, remand would be futile because the time for an institution
`
`decision by a properly appointed APJ panel has long since passed. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(b)(2); see PersonalWeb Tech., LLC v. FaceBook, Inc., 2014 WL 116350, at *2
`
`(N.D. Cal. January 13, 2014)
`
`(“The PTO must decide whether
`
`to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`
`
`institute IPR within three months of the patent owner's preliminary response, or
`
`in the event no response is filed, by the last date on which the response could have
`
`been filed.”) (emphasis added). Even if a new APJ panel instituted, this IPR would
`
`be in direct violation of § 314(b)(2). Further, the final decision could not possibly be
`
`reached by a newly appointed panel within the 18-month deadlines2 of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). The deadline for a final written decision, like the
`
`institution deadline, is not extendable.
`
`The PTAB’s ability to make a new institution decision and, if necessary, issue
`
`a final written decision within the statutory deadline is further constrained by the
`
`fact that the supposed “fix” provided by the Federal Circuit in Arthrex violates
`
`statutory requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. In Arthrex, the Federal
`
`Circuit struck down restrictions on the removal of APJs, thereby permitting the
`
`Director to remove APJs without cause. Arthrex, Inc., 2019 WL 5616010, at *10.
`
`Administrative
`
`law
`
`judges presiding over proceedings governed by
`
`the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act, however, can only be removed in cases where “good
`
`cause [is] established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the
`
`record after opportunity for hearing before the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7521. The Federal
`
`Circuit has already recognized that inter partes review is a formal adjudication
`
`
`2 This assumes a six-month extension was sought and granted before the 1 year
`deadline passed.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`
`
`governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805
`
`F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Absent congressional action exempting inter
`
`partes review from the formal adjudication requirements of the Administrative
`
`Procedures Act, APJs cannot preside over inter partes review proceedings while
`
`simultaneously complying with both constitutional and statutory requirements.
`
`Because there is no possibility of an institution decision within the time frame
`
`prescribed by the America Invents Act (“AIA”) or any possibility of a final written
`
`decision being issued within the AIA deadlines if a new panel were to start this
`
`process over from scratch as required by Nguyen, Ryder, and Lucia, this IPR must
`
`be terminated with prejudice. Any other result would thwart the fundamental
`
`purpose of the AIA that created IPRs for the purposes of “providing quick and cost-
`
`effective alternatives to litigation.” H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011), 2011
`
`U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 78; 77 F. Reg. 48680–01 (Aug. 14, 2012); Universal Elecs., Inc.
`
`v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1029–30 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner CyWee Group, Ltd. objects to these proceedings as being held
`
`before judicial officers that were unconstitutionally appointed and asks that these
`
`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s /Jay P. Kesan
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`proceedings be terminated with prejudice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Dated: December 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the date
`
`indicated below, a complete and entire copy of this submission, including the
`
`exhibits hereto, was provided by email to Petitioners’ counsel via email, as agreed
`
`to by Petitioners’ Service Information in the Petition submissions, by serving the
`
`email addresses of record as follows:
`
`Counsel for Google:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`
`Andrew S. Baluch
`baluch@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Christopher M. Colice
`colice@smithbaluch.com
`
`Counsel for ZTE:
`
`James R. Sobieraj
`jsobierah@brinksgilson.com
`
`Andrea Shoffstall
`ashoffstall@brinksgilson.com
`
`Counsel for Samsung:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Chetan Bansal
`PH-Samsung-Cywee-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`Yeuzhong Feng
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`
`ZTE_CyweeIPRs@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Counsel for LG:
`
`Collin Park
`collin.park@morganlewis.com
`
`Jeremy Peterson
`jeremy.peterson@morganlewis.com
`
`Filed: December 3, 2019
`
`
`
`Andrew Devkar
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`Adam Brooke
`adam.brooke@morganlewis.com
`
`
`MLB_CyweevsLGE@morganlewis.com
`
`Counsel for Huawei:
`
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Benjamin M. Kleinman
`Norris P. Boothe
`HuaweiCywee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s /Jay P. Kesan
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket