`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLING TV, L.L.C., et al.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01332
`Patent 8,934,535
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY TO REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC’S
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ...................................... 2
`II.
`III. The Petition Is Not Time Barred Under § 315(b) ........................................... 3
`A. Realtime Data’s June 2017 Complaint Does Not Trigger § 315(b)’s
`Time Bar ................................................................................................... 3
`B. Click-To-Call Does Not Alter the Board’s Opinion ................................. 5
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`DISH1030
`
`Executed Assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535
`
`DISH1031
`
`DISH1032
`
`
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC v. EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C. et al., Case
`No. 6:17-cv-00567 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-
`02097 (D. Col. Oct. 10, 2017)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners’ reply addresses the Federal Circuit’s Click-To-Call Techs., LP v.
`
`Ingenio, Inc., YellowPages.com, LLC, 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018), decision
`
`regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which issued after Petitioners filed the instant
`
`petition. Patent Owner errs by relying on Click-To-Call for its assertion that
`
`Petitioners are time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) by the service of a June 2017
`
`complaint. Click-To-Call is not controlling and readily distinguishable because the
`
`entity that filed the June 2017 complaint, Realtime Data, LLC—not the Patent
`
`Owner, Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC—did not own the patent and thus did
`
`not have standing to file the complaint in the first place. The Federal Circuit
`
`recently confirmed that Click-To-Call did not address this scenario. Hamilton
`
`Beach Brands, Inc. v. f'real Foods, LLC, No. 2018-1274, 2018 WL 6005016, at *4
`
`(Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2018) (“That f’real lacked standing to file its 2014 complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ’662 patent involves a circumstance not present, or
`
`considered, in Click-to-Call. We do not decide that question in this appeal.”).
`
`Click-To-Call is inapposite because that decision dealt with the effect of
`
`actions subsequent to the filing of a proper federal complaint, in particular a
`
`motion to dismiss without prejudice. The problem here is that the Patent Owner
`
`relies on a complaint that was jurisdictionally defective at the time of filing
`
`because the entity that filed the first complaint did not own the patent and did not
`
`have standing to sue. Petitioners need not rely on subsequent events to satisfy
`
`§ 315(b) because there was never a “proper federal pleading” in the first place.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`The June 2017 complaint was a nullity as of its filing date. And while the Federal
`
`Circuit has not addressed this particular circumstance, the Board has. As discussed
`
`in detail below, prior Board opinions dictate a jurisdictionally deficient complaint,
`
`such as the June 2017 complaint, does not trigger § 315(b)’s time bar.
`
`II. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`On June 6, 2017, Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime Data”) filed an amended
`
`complaint in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Petitioners infringed U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,934,535 (“the ’535 Patent”), among others. IPR2018-01332, Paper
`
`No. 6 at Ex. 2001 (PTAB Nov. 8, 2018) (“POPR”). Realtime Data served the
`
`amended complaint on Petitioners a few days later. POPR at 4. But there was a
`
`major problem with the complaint. Realtime Data did not own the ’535 patent. It
`
`had previously transferred the ’535 Patent to a different company, Patent Owner
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC (“Realtime Adaptive”) a few months earlier.
`
`DISH1030 (recorded assignment of the ’535 patent to Realtime Adaptive that was
`
`executed on March 7, 2017). Unsurprisingly, Realtime Data later voluntarily
`
`dismissed its complaint without prejudice. POPR at 4 n.3. Realtime Adaptive then
`
`filed its first complaints on October 10, 2017 in the Eastern District of Texas and
`
`the District of Colorado. DISH1031; DISH1032.
`
`On July 3, 2018, less than a year after the filing of the October 2017
`
`complaints by the actual patent owner, Petitioners petitioned for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’535 Patent. On August 16, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued a
`
`decision in, Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., YellowPages.com, LLC, 899
`
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018), that addressed, inter alia, the application of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b)’s time bar to a complaint for patent infringement that has been voluntarily
`
`dismissed. In its Preliminary Response, Realtime Adaptive argued that the
`
`petition, which was timely under the Board’s practice before Click-to-Call, was
`
`now time-barred by the June 2017 amended complaint. POPR at 1-5. Realtime
`
`Adaptive did not address the fact that it did not file and serve the June 2017
`
`amended complaint on which it relies. See id.
`III. THE PETITION IS NOT TIME BARRED UNDER § 315(b)
`Patent Owner Realtime Adaptive cannot rely on Realtime Data’s June 2017
`
`complaint to trigger 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s time bar because that complaint is a
`
`nullity as a matter of law. As a prior Board opinion put it, it was “not a proper
`
`federal pleading” that can trigger § 315(b). And the Board’s opinion is consistent
`
`with Click-to-Call’s reasoning and § 315(b)’s legislative history.
`
`A. Realtime Data’s June 2017 Complaint Does Not Trigger § 315(b)’s
`Time Bar
`Realtime Data’s June 2017 complaint did not trigger the one-year time bar
`
`under § 315(b) because it was not a “proper federal pleading.” See Hamilton
`
`Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real Foods, LLC, IPR2016-01107, 2016 WL 7985447, at
`
`*4 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016) (“Institution Decision”).
`
`In Hamilton Beach, f’real served Hamilton Beach with a complaint alleging
`
`patent infringement along with other claims in 2014. Id., at *2. In 2016, it moved
`
`to dismiss its patent infringement claims without prejudice because it did not own
`
`the asserted patents. Id., at *3. On the same day, the patent owner filed and
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`subsequently served a new complaint reasserting the same patent infringement
`
`causes of action. Id. The Board concluded that because f’Real lacked standing to
`
`file the original complaint, the complaint was not a “proper federal pleading” and
`
`did not trigger the one-year time bar under § 315(b). Id., at *3-*4 (“Thus, the
`
`allegation of infringement of the ’662 patent in the 2014 Complaint was not a
`
`proper federal pleading and did not trigger the one-year time period under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b).”).
`
`The present matter is indistinguishable from Hamilton Beach. Realtime
`
`Adaptive, the patent owner, did not file or serve the June 2017 complaint it relies
`
`on to trigger § 315(b)’s time bar. See DISH1030. Assignment records show that
`
`the complaint was “jurisdictionally defective” because it was filed by a company
`
`that did not own the patent (DISH1030), “and the defect could not be cured after
`
`the filing date of the complaint, e.g., by a subsequent assignment or by joining the
`
`patent title holder to the lawsuit.” Institution Decision, 2016 WL 7985447, at *3.
`
`Realtime Data’s June 2017 complaint, in other words, was not “a proper federal
`
`pleading” that could trigger § 315(b)’s time bar. Id., at *4.
`
`Federal Circuit precedent similarly dictates that a complaint filed by an
`
`entity without standing is a legal nullity as of the filing date. The Federal Circuit
`
`has held that “‘[i]f . . . plaintiff lacked . . . standing, the suit must be dismissed, and
`
`the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured after the inception of the lawsuit.”
`
`Abraxis Bioscience, Inv. v. Navinta LLC, 625 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see
`
`also Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 402 F.3d 1198, 1203 (Fed. Cir.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`2005) (same). Other courts have likewise reached the same conclusion. See, e.g.,
`
`Fabro Oriented Polymers, Inc. v. McCormick, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9224, at
`
`*17-*24 (W.D. Mich. May 7, 2002) (a patentee’s “amendment of the pleadings
`
`cannot rewrite history and cure a standing defect.”); Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp.
`
`v. Hellas Telecomm., S.a.r.l, 790 F.3d 411, 423 (2d Cir. 2015) (“in the absence of a
`
`plaintiff with standing, this lawsuit was a nullity.”).
`
`B. Click-To-Call Does Not Alter the Board’s Opinion
`
`As Patent Owner acknowledges, Click-To-Call addresses the effect of
`
`“subsequent events” after the service of a complaint in a civil action. POPR at 2, 4
`
`(emphasis in original). It does not address whether a complaint that is a legal
`
`nullity can trigger § 315(b), as the Federal Circuit recently confirmed. Hamilton
`
`Beach Brands, Inc., 2018 WL 6005016, at *4. Because the June 2017 complaint is
`
`a legal nullity, there is nothing for a subsequent event to undo.
`
`The Board’s Hamilton Beach opinion is consistent with Click-to-Call. In
`
`Click-to-Call, the Federal Circuit implicitly assumed that the “complaint” was a
`
`proper federal pleading.1 Like Congress, the Federal Circuit need not specify that
`
`the “complaint” be proper. It is a bedrock principle of patent law that “[a] patentee
`
`shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 281
`
`
`
`1 To hold otherwise would permit any third party without any ownership interests
`
`in a patent to trigger § 315(b) simply by serving a complaint.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`(emphasis added). And “Congress must be presumed to draft . . . in light of . . .
`
`background [legal] principle[s].” Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 49–50
`
`(2002). Moreover, the Federal Circuit began its analysis with a reference to §
`
`315(b)’s title, “Patent Owner’s Action” (Click-To-Call, 899 F.3d at 1330), which
`
`confirms the limited scope of § 315(b)’s reach. See Yanko v. United States, 869
`
`F.3d 1328, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“statutory titles and section headings are
`
`tools available for the resolution of doubt about the meaning of a statute.”)
`
`The legislative history of § 315(b) also demonstrates that its time bar only
`
`concerns proper federal pleadings because Congress only envisioned that the
`
`deadline would be triggered after the patent owner filed a complaint:
`The House bill also extends the deadline for allowing an accused
`infringer to seek inter partes review after he has been sued for
`infringement. The Senate bill imposed a 6-month deadline on seeking
`IPR after the patent owner has filed an action for infringement. The
`final bill extends this deadline, at proposed section 315(b), to 1
`year. . . . Current law imposes no deadline on seeking inter partes
`reexamination. And in light of the present bill’s enhanced estoppels,
`it is important that the section 315(b) deadline afford defendants a
`reasonable opportunity to identify and understand the patent claims
`that are relevant to the litigation.
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphasis
`
`added). As reflected above, the entire purpose of § 315(b) and the AIA, more
`
`generally, is to provide petitioners with an efficient alternative to district court
`
`6
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`litigation while providing adequate protections to patent owners. See id.; see also
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1375-76 (daily ed. March 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl). But
`
`when a party without standing initiates the suit, there is no balancing to be done
`
`because there is no patent owner and no legitimate district court litigation.2
`
`The Board’s decision in Hamilton Beach is thus consistent with Click-to-
`
`Call’s reasoning and § 315(b)’s legislative history.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons in the Petition and the Reply, Petitioners requests Inter
`
`Partes Review of the Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Notably, the Click-to-Call Court’s rationale for imposing a bar for dismissed
`
`complaints—that the “service of a complaint is the seminal notice-conferring
`
`event”—does not apply here. Click-To-Call, 899 F.3d at 1332. Since Realtime
`
`Data was not the patent owner, its complaint did not even provide adequate notice
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 287. In Lans v. Digital Equip. Corp., 252 F.3d 1320, 1326–28,
`
`59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the actual notice requirement of § 287(a)
`
`demands notice of the patentee’s identity as well as notice of infringement.”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 4, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Adam R. Shartzer
`Adam R. Shartzer, Reg. No. 57,264
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`8
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 45035-0002IP3
`IPR2018-01332
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on December
`
`4, 2018, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner Reply to Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response and its supporting exhibits were provided via email, to the
`
`Patent Owner by serving the email correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Neil A. Rubin
`Kent Shum
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`
`Email: nrubin@raklaw.com
`Email: kshum@raklaw.com
`Email: rak_realtimedata@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`