`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01508
`Patent 8,155,012 B2
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. ii
`
`List of Exhibits ......................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The Statute, 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1), Bars Petitioner’s IPR Request ................ 1
`
`III. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.,
`
`905 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................2, 3
`
`Bonneville Associates, Ltd. Partner-ship v. Barram,
`
`165 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ....................................................................... 4
`
`Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc.,
`
`899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 2, 3, 4
`
`Emerson Electric No. v. Sipco, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-01579, Paper 7 .................................................................................. 4
`
`Graves v. Principi,
`
`294 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................... 4
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ............................................................................................. 1, 2, 3, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`Petitioner’s Complaint challenging the validity of ‘012 patent claims
`2001
`2002 Order Temporarily Staying Case
`2003 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner, Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Chrimar”), submits
`
`the
`
`following Preliminary Response
`
`(“Preliminary
`
`Response”) to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`B2 (“the ‘012 Patent”).
`
`Patent Owner respectfully asks the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the
`
`Board”) deny the Petition on every ground alleged by the Petitioner.
`
`II. The Statute, 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1), Bars Petitioner’s IPR Request
`
`Per 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1): “An inter partes review may not be instituted if,
`
`before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or
`
`real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the
`
`patent.” In the present proceeding, the Petitioner filed a civil action challenging
`
`the validity of a claim ‘012 Patent in 2014, long before the date (August 3, 2018)
`
`on which it filed the petition for review. (Ex. 2001, ¶¶4-5, 60-65.) As a matter of
`
`law, therefore, “inter partes review may not be instituted.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1).
`
`Petitioner contends that § 315(a)(1) does not apply, despite its plain
`
`language, because Petitioner “voluntarily dismissed the March 2015 [sic] action.”
`
`(Pet. at 8.) But, as the Federal Circuit has made clear in two recent cases,
`
`voluntary dismissal of a civil action does not toll a § 315 bar date. Bennett
`
`Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 905 F.3d 1311, 1314-15 (Fed.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`Cir. 2018); Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1329, n.3
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc as to footnote 3).
`
`In Click-To-Call, the en banc court held that § 315(b)’s time bar applies
`
`even when a party voluntarily dismisses its complaint without prejudice. Click-To-
`
`Call, 899 F.3d at 1329, n.3, 1335 (“[T]he appropriate question is whether the
`
`voluntary, without prejudice dismissal of a civil action in which a complaint had
`
`been served nullifies an administrative time bar that is triggered by service of that
`
`complaint. It does not.”). Although the Federal Circuit was addressing § 315(b)—
`
`which applies to complaints alleging infringement—not § 315(a)(1)—which
`
`applies to declaratory judgment complaints alleging invalidity—the court’s
`
`analysis applies equally to § 315(a)(1).
`
`The Federal Circuit explained that, in interpreting § 315(b), one must first
`
`“determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning
`
`with regard to the particular dispute in the case.” Id. at 1329. The court explained:
`
`The statute does not contain any exceptions or exemptions for
`
`complaints served in civil actions that are subsequently dismissed,
`
`with or without prejudice. Nor does it contain any indication that the
`
`application of § 315(b) is subject to any subsequent act or ruling.
`
`Instead, the provision unambiguously precludes the Director from
`
`instituting an IPR if the petition seeking institution is filed more than
`
`one year after the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`petitioner “is served with a complaint” alleging patent infringement.
`
`Simply put, § 315(b)'s time bar is implicated once a party receives
`
`notice through official delivery of a complaint in a civil action,
`
`irrespective of subsequent events.
`
`Id. at 1330 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit’s decision applies the Supreme
`
`Court’s guidance in SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, namely, “[w]here a statute’s language
`
`carries a plain meaning, the duty of an administrative agency is to follow its
`
`commands as written, not to supplant those commands with others it may prefer.”
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).
`
`One month after Click-To-Call, the Federal Circuit confirmed that “[t]he
`
`statute endorses no exceptions for dismissed complaints. . . . The statutory
`
`language clearly expresses that service of a complaint starts § 315(b)’s clock.”
`
`Bennett Regulator, 905 F.3d at 1315 (emphasis in original).
`
`The relevant text of § 315(a)(1) parallels that of § 315(b). Both define a bar
`
`against instituting inter partes review triggered by filing/service of a complaint. In
`
`§ 315(a)(1), the bar arises the day “the petitioner . . . file[s] a civil action.” In
`
`§315(b), the bar occurs one year from when “the petitioner is served with a
`
`complaint.” Just as the word “served” is unambiguous, so, too, the word “filed” is
`
`unambiguous: § 315(a)(1) “does not contain any exceptions or exemptions for
`
`complaints [filed] in civil actions that are subsequently dismissed, with or without
`
`prejudice.” Click-To-Call, 899 F.3d at 1330. On the contrary, “the provision
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`unambiguously precludes the Director from instituting an IPR if the petition
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`seeking institution is filed” after the triggering event—here the petitioner filing “a
`
`civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.” Click-To-Call, 899
`
`F.3d at 1330; 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1).
`
`In Click-To-Call, the Federal Circuit expressly rejected arguments that the
`
`Board should treat the voluntary dismissal of a complaint as “nullif[ying] the effect
`
`of the service of the complaint.” Click-To-Call, 899 F.3d at 1335. The court
`
`faulted the Board for relying “on cases holding that the voluntary dismissal of an
`
`action or appeal does not toll a statute of limitations to conclude that the voluntary
`
`dismissal without prejudice of a civil action does indefinitely toll § 315(b) and
`
`permit[] an otherwise untimely IPR to proceed, turning Bonneville [Associates,
`
`Ltd. Partner-ship v. Barram, 165 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)] and Graves [v.
`
`Principi, 294 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002)] on their head.” Id. (emphasis in
`
`original). Notably, the Petition (p. 8) cites, as the only authority, a 2015 IPR
`
`decision (Emerson Electric No. v. Sipco, LLC, IPR2015-01579, Paper 7, *2-3) that
`
`cites Graves and relies on the now-rejected tolling rationale.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`For these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny
`
`the Petition for inter partes review of the ‘012 Patent.
`
`
`Dated: December 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on December 5, 2018, a complete and
`entire copy of PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, was
`served on all counsel listed below via electronic mail at: Cisco-ChriMar-
`IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`James E. Marina (Reg. No. 41,969)
`james.marina@kirkland.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Ave.
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`
`
`
`
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Robert Kang (Reg. No. 59,609)
`robert.kang@kirkland.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Fax: (415) 439-1500
`
`Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579)
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Fax: (312) 862-2200
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01508
`Patent No.: 8,155,012 B2
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0118IPR
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`
`
`
`This paper complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24.
`
`The paper contains 947 words, excluding the parts of the paper exempted by
`
`§42.24(a).
`
`This paper also complies with the typeface requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(ii) and the type style requirements of § 42.6(a)(iii)&(iv).
`
`
`Dated: December 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`7
`
`