`571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 10
` Entered: March 7, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and BARBARA A. BENOIT,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`CORRECTED DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”)
`filed a petition (Paper 1) seeking inter partes review of claims 1–7 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 B2. Patent Owner, INVT SPE LLC, filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 7).
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–7 of the ’439 patent as unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the following references:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 B2, filed April 17, 2001, issued June
`7, 2005 (Ex. 1003, “Li”);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 B2, filed September 1, 2004, issued
`May 22, 2007 (Ex. 1004, “Vijayan”); and
`U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569 B1, filed September 29, 2000, issued
`April 13, 2004 (Ex. 1005, “Hashem”).
`Pet. 9–46.
`The caption page of Paper 8 indicated inter partes review was
`instituted, as did Paper 8 itself:
`For the reasons explained above, we determine that the
`information presented in the Petition and the Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner will prevail in showing the subject matter of claim
`1 would have been obvious over Li, Vijayan, and Hashem.
`Accordingly, inter partes review of all claims in the single
`asserted ground presented in the Petition is hereby instituted. 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a); see SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
`1359–60 (2018) (holding an inter partes review may not institute
`on less than all claims challenged in the petition); PGS
`Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`(indicating that a decision whether to institute an inter partes
`review “requires a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting
`a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).
`Pet. 41–42.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`
`The order embedded in Paper 8, however, mistakenly indicated that
`institution was not being instituted. Paper 8, 47. We issue this Corrected
`Decision to Institute on the same day as Paper 8.
`Accordingly, for the reasons given in Paper 8, it is:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of claims 1–7 of the U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 B2 is instituted with
`respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.4(b), inter partes review of the ’439 patent shall commence on
`the entry date of this Order, and notice is hereby given of the institution of a
`trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Stephen Korniczky
`Martin Bader
`Nam Kim
`Darren Franklin
`Ericka Schulz
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`nkim@sheppardmullin.com
`dranklin@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Cyrus Morton
`Bryan Vogel
`Derrick Carman
`Stephanie Diehl
`Li Zhu
`Shui Li
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`bvogel@robinskaplan.com
`dcarman@robinskaplan.com
`sdiehl@robinskaplan.com
`sli@robinskaplan.com
`lzhu@robinskaplan.com
`
`4
`
`
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
