UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01511
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01511
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`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.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`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.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`Petitioner’s Complaint challenging the validity of ‘760 patent claims
`2001
`2002 Order Temporarily Staying Case
`2003 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`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. 8,902,760
`
`(“the ‘760 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 ‘760 Patent in 2015, long before the date (August 3, 2018)
`
`on which it filed the petition for review. (Ex. 2001, ¶¶3-4, 76-81.) 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 action.” (Pet.
`
`at 7.) 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. Cir. 2018);
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1329, n.3 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`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.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`prejudice.” Click-To-Call, 899 F.3d at 1330. On the contrary, “the provision
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`unambiguously precludes the Director from instituting an IPR if the petition
`
`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. 7) 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.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`For these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny
`
`the Petition for inter partes review of the ‘760 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.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`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.: IPR2018-01511
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0121IPR
`
`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
`
`
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
