IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`—————————————
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`—————————————
`
`ZTE (USA), INC
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FRACTUS S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————————————
`
`IPR No. IPR2018-01455
`U.S. Patent No. 7,394,432
`Issue Date: July 1, 2008
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Date: April 7, 2015
`
`—————————————
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,394,432 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 & 37 C.F.R. 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 1 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest .......................................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ................................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Counsel and Service Information ....................................................................... 5 
`PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................................... 5 
`III. 
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................................... 5 
`V. 
`GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE ................................................................................... 6 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’432 PATENT AND THE PRIOR ART ................................... 8 
`A. 
`The ’432 Patent ................................................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Prosecution history ........................................................................................... 11 
`C. Summary of Primary Prior Art References Relied on ............................................. 13 
`VII.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................................... 20 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... 21 
`“multilevel structure” ................................................................................................... 21 
`“geometric elements ” .................................................................................................. 22 
`“frequency band” .......................................................................................................... 23 
`“said second [and third] portion[s] being located substantially within
`the first portion” ................................................................................................ 23 
`“radio electric behavior substantially similar” ............................................................. 24 
`“the second portion is a second level of structural detail within the first
`level of structural detail” .................................................................................. 24 
`“number of sides” ......................................................................................................... 24 
`“overall structure of the conductive radiating element” .............................................. 25 
`SPECIFIC REASONS WHY THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ...................................................................................................... 25 
`Ground 1: Claims 5-13 Are Obvious over Misra I in view of
`A. 
`Misra II ............................................................................................................. 25 
`Ground 2: Claims 5-13 are Obvious in View of Grangeat ............................. 40 
`B. 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 55 
`
`IX. 
`
`X. 
`
`i
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 2 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`Ex. 1014
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Exhibit No. Document
`Ex. 1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,394,432
`Ex. 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Chris Bartone
`Ex. 1003
`Misra et al., “Study of Impedance and Radiation Properties of
`a Concentric Microstrip Triangular-Ring Antenna and Its
`Modeling Techniques Using FDTD Method,” IEEE
`Transactions on Antennas and Propagations, Vol, 46, No. 4,
`April, 1998 (“Misra I”)
`Misra et al., “Experimental Investigations on the Impedance
`and Radiation Properties of a Three-Element Concentric
`Microstrip Antenna,” Microwave and Optical Technology
`Letters, Vol, 11, No. 2, February, 1996 (“Misra II”)
`U.S Patent No. 6,133,879 (“Grangeat”)
`U.S Patent No. 6,195,048 (“Chiba”)
`Declaration of Brian Durrance
`Fractus v. ZTE et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00561 (D.I. 71)
`Fractus v. Samsung et al., Case No. 6:09-cv-00203 (D.I. 526)
`Reexamination Certificate of ’432 patent
`Ex parte Reexamination Response to Non-Final Office
`Action 90/013,024
`Ex parte Reexamination Non-final Office Action 90/013,024
`Ex parte Reexamination Request Decision 90/013,024
`Ex parte Reexamination Petition 90/013,024
`inter partes Reexamination Request 95/001,483
`inter partes Reexamination Non-final Office Action
`95/001,483
`inter partes Reexamination Action Closing Prosecution
`95/001,483
`inter partes Reexamination Termination 95/001,483
`Order on Inter Partes Reexam Petition 95/002,349
`Patent Owner’s Statutory Disclaimer
`Claim 17 of App. No. PCT/ES99/00296, filed Sep. 20, 1999
`Ex. N from Patent Owner’s Claim Construction Brief, Fractus
`v. ZTE et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00561
`U.S. Patent No. 7,015,868
`
`Ex. 1018
`Ex. 1019
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 3 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`January 15, 2008 Office Action in U.S. Serial No. 11/550,256
`(’432 Patent)
`February 28, 2008 Office Action Response in U.S. Serial No.
`11/550,256 (’432 Patent)
`March 28, 2008 Notice of Allowance in U.S. Serial No.
`11/550,256 (’432 Patent)
`July 18, 2018 Certified Letter from Library of Congress
`regarding Misra I
`July 18, 2018 Certified Letter from Library of Congress
`regarding Misra II
`Declaration of Gang Chen
`
`iii
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 4 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`INTRODUCTION
`ZTE (USA), Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims
`
`I.
`
`5-13 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,394,432 (“the ’432 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001), which on its face is assigned to Fractus, S.A. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`As explained below, the ’432 patent was subject to an inter partes
`
`reexamination (“IPX”), where original claims 1-3 and 6 were found invalid over the
`
`prior art. Patent Owner filed an appeal with the Board. Before the Board ruled on
`
`the merits, the appeal was terminated as moot due to Patent Owner’s settlement of
`
`concurrent litigation involving the ’432 patent. Patent Owner subsequently amended
`
`claim 6 to overcome invalidity rejections in an ex parte reexamination (“EPX”) filed
`
`by Samsung, and later sued Petitioner for infringement of that claim. But no claim
`
`of the ’432 patent has been found valid in the PTO when an opposing party had the
`
`opportunity to explain why Patent Owner’s amendments and arguments failed to
`
`establish patentability.
`
`The challenged claims should be found unpatentable and canceled on the
`
`grounds discussed below, which were not previously considered by the PTO.
`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc.
`
`as the real parties-in-interest.
`
`1
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 5 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner is contemporaneously filing additional inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`petitions on 6 patents that are based on the same specification as the ’432 patent,
`
`namely U.S. Patent Nos. 7,397,431 (IPR2018-01451); 8,941,541 (IPR2018-01456);
`
`8,976,069 (IPR2018-01457); 9,054,421 (IPR2018-01461); 9,240,632 (IPR2018-
`
`01462); and 9,362,617 (IPR2018-01463).
`
`Patent Owner has alleged that Petitioner infringes these patents in Fractus,
`
`S.A. v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA), Inc., and ZTE (TX), Inc., Civil Action No.
`
`2:17-cv-00561-JRG, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of Texas. Petitioner is not aware of other pending judicial or administrative
`
`matters that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`The ’432 patent, and other patents claiming priority to the same specification,
`
`was the subject of the patent infringement lawsuit Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung et al.,
`
`Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-00203-LED-JDL, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Texas in May of 2009. That litigation concluded in 2014, when
`
`the parties settled while the case was pending before the Federal Circuit.
`
`The ’432 patent was also subject to, or related to, the following proceedings.
`
`Proceeding
`
`Case
`Number
`95/001,483
`
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,394,432 (“ ’1483 IPX”)
`Inter partes reexamination 95/001,500
`
`Filed
`
`Status
`
`Nov. 11, 2010 Terminated
`
`Dec. 3, 2010
`
`Terminated
`
`2
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 6 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
` U.S. Patent No.
`of
`7,394,432 (“ ’1500 IPX”)
`Inter partes reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No.
`7,394,432 (“ ’588 IPX”)
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
`
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,394,432 (“ ’2349 IPX”)
`Ex parte reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,394,432
`(“ ’3024 EPX”)
`Samsung Electronics CO.,
`Ltd. v. Fractus, S.A. (U.S.
`Patent No. 7,394,432)
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
`
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,397,431
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
`
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,397,431
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
`
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,397,431
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,397,431
`Ex parte reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,431
`Samsung Electronics CO.,
`Ltd. v. Fractus, S.A. (U.S.
`Patent No. 7,397,431)
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,123,208
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
`
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,123,208
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
`
` U.S. Patent No.
`
`95/000,588
`
`Dec. 13, 2010 Terminated
`
`95/002,349
`
`Sep. 14, 2012 Dismissed
`
`90/013,024
`
`Oct. 9, 2013
`
`Certificate Issued
`
`IPR2014-
`00012
`
`Oct. 4, 2013
`
`Denied Institution
`
`95/001,482
`
`Nov. 11, 2010 Terminated
`
`95/001,497
`
`Dec. 3, 2010
`
`Terminated
`
`95/000,586
`
`Dec. 13, 2010 Terminated
`
`95/002,346
`
`Sep. 14, 2012 Dismissed
`
`90/013,023
`
`Oct. 9, 2013
`
`Certificate Issued
`
`IPR2014-
`00011
`
`Oct. 4, 2013
`
`Denied Institution
`
`95/001,389
`
`Jul. 1, 2010
`
`Terminated
`
`95/001,501
`
`Dec. 3, 2010
`
`Dismissed
`
`95/000,591
`
`Dec. 14, 2010 Dismissed
`
`3
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 7 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`7,123,208
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
`
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,123,208
`Ex parte reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,123,208
`Samsung Electronics CO.,
`Ltd. v. Fractus, S.A. (U.S.
`Patent No. 7,123,208)
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,528,782
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,528,782
`Inter partes reexamination
`of
`
` U.S. Patent No.
`7,528,782
`Samsung Electronics CO.,
`Ltd. v. Fractus, S.A. (U.S.
`Patent No. 7,015,868)
`
`
`
`95/002,305
`
`Sep. 14, 2012 Dismissed
`
`90/013,022
`
`Oct. 9, 2013
`
`Certificate Issued
`
`IPR2014-
`00008
`
`Oct. 4, 2013
`
`Denied Institution
`
`95/001,455
`
`Sep. 30, 2010 Certificate Issued
`
`95/001,499
`
`Dec. 3, 2010
`
`Dismissed
`
`95/000,595
`
`Dec. 14, 2010 Certificate Issued
`
`IPR2014-
`00013
`
`Oct. 4, 2013
`
`Denied Institution
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 8 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`Back-Up Counsel
`James R. Sobieraj
`Jon H. Beaupré
`Reg. No. 30,805
`Reg. No. 54,729
`jsobieraj@brinksgilson.com
`jbeaupre@brinksgilson.com
`ZTE_FractusIPRs@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`David Lindner
`
`Reg. No. 53,222
`Brinks Gilson & Lione,
`dlindner@brinksgilson.com
`
`Tower, Suite 3600, NBC Tower
`Gang Chen
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Reg. No. 68,754
`Chicago, IL, 60611
`gchen@brinksgilson.com
`T: 312.321.4200, F: 321.321.4299
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione,
`Tower, Suite 3600, NBC Tower
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago, IL, 60611
`T: 312.321.4200, F: 321.321.4299
`
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`
`
`
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The Petition Fee of $30,500 required by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) is paid
`
`concurrently with the filing of this Petition by Deposit Account 23-1925. The PTO
`
`is authorized to charge any additional fees to deposit account 23-1925.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’432 patent is available for IPR, and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`5
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 9 of 61
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE
`The challenged claims should be cancelled as unpatentable on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`1st Ground: Claims 5-13 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`based on Misra I (Ex. 1003) in view of Misra II (Ex. 1004).
`
`2nd Ground: Claims 5-13 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`based on Grangeat (Ex. 1005).
`
`Petitioner assumes the earliest effective filing date of the ’432 patent is
`
`September 20, 1999, which is the filing date of the PCT application to which the ’432
`
`patent claims priority. Patent Owner has alleged an earlier priority date in discovery,
`
`but it has not provided Petitioner with documentation that demonstrates conception
`
`of the invention as claimed, followed by diligence until reduction to practice. Price
`
`v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190-91 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(Patent Owner has the burden of
`
`proving conception and diligence by clear and convincing evidence); REG Synthetic
`
`Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(“Conception must
`
`include every feature or limitation of the claimed invention.”)
`
`Misra I was published in the journal IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
`
`Propagation, Vol. 46, No. 4, on April 16, 1998, more than one year prior to the
`
`earliest effective filing date of the ’432 patent, and is thus available as prior art under
`
`6
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 10 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b). (Ex. 1007.0002-3; Ex. 1027.0001.) 1
`
`Misra II was published in the journal Microwave and Optical Technology
`
`Letters, Vol, 11, No. 2, on January 26, 1996, more than one year prior to the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the ’432 patent, and is thus available as prior art under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b). (Ex. 1007.0002-3; Ex. 1028.0001.)
`
`Grangeat was filed on December 11, 1998, issued on October 17, 2000, and
`
`thus is available as prior art under at least the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (Ex.
`
`1005, cover page.)
`
`Misra I was not cited by or to the PTO during prosecution of the ’432 patent.
`
`In the ’1483 IPX, Misra I was used as a ground for rejecting originally issued
`
`claims 1-3 and 6, and that rejection stood when ’1483 IPX was terminated due to a
`
`settlement. (Ex. 1016.0010-11.) Claims 1-3 were later statutorily disclaimed.
`
`Claim 6 was amended in ’3024 EPX and claims 7-13 were added as depending on
`
`amended claim 6, but Misra I was not cited by or to the PTO in the ’3024 EPX.
`
`Claim 5 was not included in the ’1483 IPX or the ’3024 EPX. Therefore, Misra I
`
`was not considered for the currently challenged claims 5-13.
`
`Misra II was considered during the ’3024 EPX, but the combination of Misra
`
`
`1 Misra I and Misra II are authenticated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 901(1), and under
`
`901(8). (Ex. 1007.0003.)
`
`7
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 11 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`I and Misra II was never considered by the Patent Office during examination in the
`
`original prosecution or any subsequent proceedings as to the challenged claims 5-13.
`
`Grangeat was not cited by or to the PTO during prosecution of the ’432 patent
`
`or the ’1483 IPX. Grangeat was included in a ground for rejection in the request
`
`for ’2349 IPX (which was denied as untimely) and the request for the ’3024 EPX.
`
`The PTO denied consideration of this ground in the ’3024 EPX because the
`
`reexamination request did not include particulars as to Grangeat’s antenna
`
`characteristics. (Ex. 1019.0002-3; Ex. 1014.0023-28.) This Petition does provide
`
`expert testimony with particulars as to antenna characteristics that were not
`
`previously considered by the PTO. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶147-172.) As such, the PTO has
`
`not considered the patentability of the challenged claims 5-13 based on Grangeat
`
`and the expert testimony presented here.
`
`In sum, the grounds identified in this Petition for the challenged claims 5-13
`
`do not present the same, or substantially the same, obviousness grounds or
`
`arguments as those considered during prior examinations.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’432 PATENT AND THE PRIOR ART
`A. The ’432 Patent
`The ’432 patent is directed to multilevel antennae that have several
`
`distinguishing characteristics. First, a multi-level geometry comprises individual
`
`polygons or polyhedrons of the same type (also called “geometric elements”), which
`
`8
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 12 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`are electromagnetically coupled and grouped to form a larger structure and remain
`
`individually identifiable. This provides at least two levels of detail: the overall
`
`structure and the individual polygons or polyhedrons (or a majority of them) that
`
`make it up. (Ex. 1001, 2:37-64; 3:30-38.) In the multilevel structure, at least 75%
`
`of individual elements have more than 50% of their perimeter not in contact with
`
`any other element. (Id. at 4:60-66.) This creates empty spaces that allow for longer
`
`and more winding current paths. (Id. at 3:16-29.) This geometrical design allows
`
`the multilevel antenna to operate in multiple frequency bands and to reduce the size
`
`of the antenna. (Id., 3:39-43.)
`
`For example, in Figure 1 below2, a multilevel antenna is formed of individual
`
`polygons of the same type (i.e., the black triangles), all of which have less than 50%
`
`of their perimeter in contact with another triangle. (The white triangles represent
`
`empty space.)
`
`
`2 Petitioners refer to figures as they appear in references as “Fig.” or “FIG.”, and
`
`refer to illustrations as they appear in this Petition as “Figure”.
`
`9
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 13 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 '432 patent, Fig. 1
`The ’432 patent explains that there are several levels of detail, “that of the
`
`overall structure and that of the individual elements which make it up.” (Id., 3:39-
`
`41). But the specification does not explain which individual elements, or
`
`combinations thereof, are associated with first and second frequency bands in Figure
`
`1 (or in any other Figure). (Ex. 1002, ¶48.) A person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“PHOSITA”) can run computer simulations to identify different levels of detail
`
`(i.e., individual elements or combinations thereof) associated with different
`
`frequencies. (Id.) In Figure 1, the perimeter of the overall structure (a triangle) has
`
`the same number of sides of each individual element (a triangle) that makes up the
`
`overall structure. In other embodiments of the ’432 patent, e.g., Figs. 3.7 and 4.1,
`
`the overall perimeter has a different number of sides than the individual elements
`
`that compose it. The patent does not say if or how it matters whether the overall
`
`perimeter has the same or different number of sides than the individual elements that
`
`10
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 14 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`compose it. (Id.)
`
`B. Prosecution history
`The application for the ’432 patent was filed on October 17, 2006, and claims
`
`priority through various divisional and continuation applications to a PCT
`
`application, filed in the Spanish Patent Office on September 20, 1999. The ’432
`
`patent issued on July 1, 2008 with claims 1-6.
`
`Samsung filed ’1483 IPX on November 11, 2010, challenging claims 1-3 and
`
`6.3 (Ex. 1015.0007) These claims were found invalid as anticipated by Misra I,
`
`Misra II, or U.S. Patent No. 6,195,048 (“Chiba”) (Ex. 1006). (Ex. 1017.0011-12.)
`
`Patent Owner appealed to the Board. The parties settled, and the appeal was
`
`terminated on August 5, 2014 without issuance of any Reexamination Certificate.
`
`(Ex. 1018.0003.) 4
`
`Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claims 1-3 on September 10, 2013. (Ex.
`
`1020.0001). On October 9, 2013, Samsung filed the ’3024 EPX, challenging
`
`
`3 ’1500 IPX, filed by HTC Corporation/HTC America, Inc., and ’588 IPX, filed by
`
`Kyocera Communication Inc., were merged with ’1483 IPX. ’2349 IPX, filed by
`
`Samsung, was dismissed as redundant over its earlier ’1483 IPX.
`
`4 Samsung’s IPR2014-00012 was denied because it was filed more than one year
`
`after Samsung was sued. (PTAB-IPR2014-00012 (D.I. 14).)
`
`11
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 15 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`originally-issued claims 1 and 6 of the ’432 Patent. (Ex. 1014.0006.) Claim 1 was
`
`not reexamined due to the statutory disclaimer. (Ex. 1012.0004.) Claim 6 was
`
`rejected as invalid over Misra II. (Ex. 1012.0010.) While Grangeat was before the
`
`Patent Office in the ’3024 EPX, the reexamination request did not provide
`
`particulars as to its antenna characteristics (Ex. 1013.0016-18; Ex. 1014.0023-29),
`
`and as a result the Patent Office determined it did not raise a substantial new question
`
`of patentability with respect to original claim 6 (Ex. 1012.0009). After the Patent
`
`Owner added limitations to claim 6 and added claims 7-13 that depend from claim
`
`6, a Reexamination Certificate issued on April 7, 2015. (Ex. 1011.0004-5; Ex.
`
`1010.0001-2.)
`
`In summary, none of the challenged claims of the ’432 patent were ever
`
`allowed over the combination of Misra I and Misra II 5, or Grangeat in light of the
`
`
`5 See Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., IPR2017-00249 (Institution
`
`Decision dated May 18, 2017 at p. 7 (Paper 9)) (“We are not persuaded … that a
`
`citation to prior art in an IDS, without substantive discussion of the reference by
`
`the Examiner, is sufficient reason to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d) to decline to institute an inter partes review”); Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel
`
`Networks Licensing, LLC, IPR2015-00483 (Institution Decision dated July 15,
`
`2015 at p. 15 (Paper 10)) (“while [the reference] was listed on a lengthy
`
`12
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 16 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`expert testimony presented here. No claim of the ’432 patent was ever found valid
`
`in an inter partes procedure in the PTO, where an opposing party could respond to
`
`the Patent Owner’s arguments in favor of patentability. As shown herein, all the
`
`challenged claims are invalid under grounds not previously considered by the Patent
`
`Office.
`
`C. Summary of Primary Prior Art References Relied on
`1. Misra I
`Like the ’432 patent, Misra I is directed to a multilevel antenna that operates
`
`in multiple frequency bands without losing the advantage of small size. (Ex. 1003,
`
`Fig. 1(a), Table 1, Conclusion p. 536.) Specifically, Misra I discloses a conductive
`
`
`Information Disclosure Statement initialed by the Examiner, the reference was
`
`not applied against the claims and there is no evidence that the Examiner
`
`considered the particular disclosures cited … in the Petition.”); Micron Tech., Inc.
`
`v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., IPR2013-00005 (Institution Decision dated Mar.
`
`13, 2013 at pp. 7, 20 (Paper 19)) (instituting IPR based on prior art that “was
`
`before the Office during prosecution,” and reasoning that “[t]he present record
`
`differs from the one before the Examiner” in that the Board now “consider[s] the
`
`[reference] in view of the [Expert] declaration testimony [], which was not before
`
`the Examiner.”).
`
`13
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 17 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`radiating element (i.e., an antenna) having a concentric microstrip triangular ring
`
`structure. (Id., Introduction; Fig. 1(a).) As shown in Figure 2 below, the multilevel
`
`structure is made up of at least three levels. (Ex. 1003, Fig. 1(a); Ex. 1002, ¶¶96,189
`
`(first level illustrated in red; second level illustrated in blue; third level illustrated in
`
`green).)
`
`Figure 2 Annotated Misra I Fig. 1(a) showing different levels
`Each of the triangles in Misra I that make up the different levels of the
`
`multilevel structure is comprised of four-sided geometric elements, as shown in
`
`Figures 3(a) and 3(b) below. (Ex. 1003, Fig. 1(a); Ex. 1002, ¶¶96-97, 181-184.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 18 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3(a) Annotated Misra I Fig. 1(a) showing geometric element and empty
`
`spaces; Figure 3(b) showing geometric elements
`
`The multilevel structure of Misra I is made up of electromagnetically coupled
`
`geometric elements. (Ex. 1003, p. 531, first paragraph of section III, “[t]he elements
`
`of the CMTRA are fed electromagnetically by a 50-Ω microstrip line”; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶185-186.) Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3(a) above, the multilevel structure of
`
`Misra I creates empty spaces because at least 75% of the four-sided elements that
`
`make up the different levels do not have more than 50% of their perimeter in contact
`
`with another element. (Ex. 1002, ¶184.)
`
`2. Misra II
`Like the ’432 patent, Misra II, authored by the same individuals as Misra I,
`
`also is directed to a multilevel antenna that operates in multiple frequency bands
`
`without losing the advantage of small size. (Ex. 1004, Fig. 2(a), Table 1, Conclusion,
`
`15
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 19 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`p. 69.) Specifically, Misra II discloses a conductive radiating element (i.e., an
`
`antenna). (Id., Introduction, Fig. 2(a).) However, rather than the triangular shape of
`
`Misra I, Misra II discloses an alternate configuration of a concentric microstrip
`
`square-ring antenna. (Id.) As shown in Figure 4 below, the multilevel structure of
`
`Misra II is similarly made up of at least three levels. (Ex. 1004, Fig. 2(a); Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶124, 175, 186 (first level illustrated in red; second level illustrated in blue; third
`
`level illustrated in green).)
`
`Figure 4 Annotated Misra II Fig. 2(a) showing different levels
`Each of the squares in Misra II that make up the different levels of the
`
`
`
`multilevel structure is comprised of four-sided geometric elements, as shown in
`
`Figures 5(a) and 5(b) below. (Ex. 1004, Fig. 2(a).)
`
`
`
`16
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 20 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5(a) Annotated Misra II Fig. 2(a) showing geometric element and
`
`empty spaces; Figure 5(b) showing geometric elements
`
`The multilevel structure of Misra II is made up of electromagnetically coupled
`
`geometric elements.
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1004, p. 67,
`
`Introduction,
`
`first paragraph.)
`
`(“Electromagnetic coupling is an attractive aspect of a microstrip antenna]..., due to
`
`its multilayered structure, which allows the antenna to be integrated with its feed
`
`circuitry.”) Furthermore, as shown in Figure 5(a) above, the multilevel structure of
`
`Misra II creates empty spaces because at least 75% of the four-sided elements that
`
`make up the different levels do not have more than 50% of their perimeter in contact
`
`with another element.
`
`3. Grangeat
`Grangeat discloses a “multifrequency microstrip antenna” for “portable
`
`telephones. . . .” (Ex. 1005, Abstract.) Grangreat describes a variety of structures
`
`that can operate at multiple frequency bands. (Id. 1005, Fig. 2, 5:17 – 10:14
`
`17
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 21 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`(describing a microstrip antenna that operates at two frequency bands); Fig.5, 10:15-
`
`43 (describing a microstrip antenna that operates at three frequency bands).) Similar
`
`to the ’432 patent, Grangeat discloses a conductive radiating element (i.e., an
`
`antenna) including multiple zones or geometric elements, which provide a multilevel
`
`structure. Grangeat discloses that these zones or geometric elements are arranged to
`
`define slots which can lengthen current paths and reduce operating frequency. (Id.,
`
`7:24-41.) Grangeat further discloses that some of the zones or geometric elements
`
`are associated with the operation of and shared by multiple frequency bands. (Id.,
`
`6:52-64.) In particular, Grangeat discloses in one operating mode, all of the zones
`
`of the antenna radiate, and in another mode less than all of them radiate. (Id.)
`
`Additional zones can be added when three (or more) operating frequencies are
`
`needed. (Id., 10:24-31 and 10:44-49).
`
`As shown in Figure 6 below, the multilevel structure of Grangeat’s Fig. 5 is
`
`made up of at least three levels. (Id., Fig. 5; Ex. 1002, ¶¶148-149, 223 (first level
`
`illustrated in red; second level illustrated in blue; third level illustrated in green).)
`
`18
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 22 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 Annotated Grangeat Fig. 5 showing different levels
`Each of the levels of Grangeat comprise multiple four-sided geometric
`
`elements, as shown in Figures 7(a) and 7(b) below (Ex. 1005, Fig. 5; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶149, 214-215.) The perimeter of the overall structure has a greater number of
`
`sides than the individual polygons that make it up. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶231-232.)
`
`
`
`19
`
`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 23 of 61
`
`

`

`Fractus S.A.
`Ex. 2028
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Fractus S.A.; IPR2018-01461
`Page 24 of 61
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01455
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,394,432
`
`
`two years of experience in antennas related to mobile wireless systems. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶54-56.)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCT