`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2018-01589
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,653,508
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments for patentability of claim 20 based on
`arguments about the patentability of claims 15 and 19 must be
`denied because the Board has already finally rejected those very
`arguments. ............................................................................................. 2
`
`Patent Owner has waived any argument that claim 20 is not
`substantially similar to the limitations of dependent claims 3 and
`13 already found unpatentable by the Board. ....................................... 3
`
`Claim 20 is unpatentable because its limitations are disclosed by
`Fabio. ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments to save claim 20 should be rejected
`because they rely on Patent Owner’s already-rejected “cadence
`window” arguments. .............................................................................. 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s “required cadence window” argument was
`already rejected by the Board in the Apple FWD. ...................... 5
`
`Patent Owner’s other arguments should be rejected
`because they are based on Patent Owner’s incorrect and
`rejected “retrospective” argument. ............................................. 6
`
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 9
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................11
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`August 27, 2019
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,653,508
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Declaration of Joe Paradiso, Ph.D, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Joe Paradiso.
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,997 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Pasolini”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,698,097 to Fabio Pasolini et al. (“Fabio”).
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`The Petition and supporting evidence establish that Pasolini alone or in
`
`combination with Fabio renders claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-16, 19, and 20 of the ’508 patent
`
`obvious. See Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition asserts substantially the same grounds
`
`of unpatentability as Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Case IPR2018-00387, Paper
`
`No. 2 (Dec. 21, 2017) (“the Apple IPR”), but includes an additional challenge to
`
`claim 20. The Board instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims, but
`
`“ordered that the parties are limited to advancing arguments regarding claim 20 in
`
`this proceeding” because the other “claims will be addressed in the Apple IPR.”
`
`HTC Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Case IPR2108-01589, Paper No. 9 at 10-11 (Feb.
`
`27, 2019) (“Decision”). On June 17, 2019, the Board issued a Final Written Decision
`
`on the Apple IPR, finding all challenged claims (1-4, 6-8, 11-16, and 19)
`
`unpatentable. IPR2018-00387, Paper No. 21 (“Apple FWD”). For similar reasons
`
`as provided by the Board in the Apple FWD with respect to claims 3 and 13, claim
`
`20 should likewise be found unpatentable.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments for claim 20 are unavailing because they are either
`
`verbatim reassertions of arguments made in the Apple IPR, which the Board has
`
`rejected, or variants of those arguments. By failing to dispute that claim 20 contains
`
`materially different limitations than do dependent claims 3 and 13, Patent Owner
`
`concedes that these claims should be treated the same. Therefore, claim 20 should
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`be found unpatentable for the same reasons the Board found claims 3 and 13
`
`unpatentable in the Apple FWD. For these reasons and as explained in further detail
`
`below, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board reject Patent Owner’s rehashed
`
`and incorrect arguments now made for claim 20 and find claim 20 unpatentable.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments for patentability of claim 20 based on
`arguments about the patentability of claims 15 and 19 must be
`denied because the Board has already finally rejected those very
`arguments.
`
`The Board ordered “that the parties are limited to advancing arguments
`
`regarding claim 20.” Paper No. 9 at 11. Nevertheless, Patent Owner elected to
`
`rehash the arguments it previously made for claims 15 and 19 (from which claim 20
`
`depends) in Apple IPR. Compare Apple IPR, Paper 11 at 11-20, with Paper 11 at 7-
`
`15 (“PO Resp.”).1 The Board finally rejected these arguments and found that “Fabio
`
`teaches the limitations of independent claims 6 and 15” and dependent claim 19.
`
`Apple FWD at 27-39, 41. As a result, Parts A and B of Patent Owner’s response
`
`
`1 Patent Owner makes the same arguments for claim 15: that Fabio does not
`
`“render[] obvious the ‘cadence window’ limitations of independent claim 15” or “the
`
`‘switching’ step recited in independent claim 6 (and by extension claim 15).” PO
`
`Resp. at 7-14 (Part A). For claim 19, Patent Owner recites the same “cadence
`
`window” argument it relied on for claim 15. PO Resp. at 14-15 (Part B).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`should be disregarded by the Board.2 See MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880
`
`F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he collateral-estoppel effect of an
`
`administrative decision of unpatentability generally requires the invalidation of
`
`related claims that present identical issues of patentability.”).
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner has waived any argument that claim 20 is not
`substantially similar to the limitations of dependent claims 3 and
`13 already found unpatentable by the Board.
`
`In its institution decision, the Board found “that the differences between claim
`
`20 and claim 3 do not seem substantial.” Decision at 8. Even with that finding, the
`
`Board gave the Patent Owner a “fair opportunity to respond to the contentions of
`
`Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant, including the opportunity to depose Petitioner’s
`
`declarant or otherwise seek discovery from Petitioner.” Id. at 8-9. Despite being
`
`afforded the opportunity, Patent Owner failed to depose Petitioner’s declarant or
`
`otherwise seek discovery regarding claim 20. Rather, Patent Owner chose to
`
`concede the substantial similarity of claim 20 to claims 3 and 13, and it provided no
`
`additional arguments distinguishing these claims. That was a waiver of any such
`
`arguments. See Paper 10 at 5 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments for
`
`
`2 To the extent the Board reconsiders those arguments in this proceeding, Petitioner
`
`adopts and incorporates by reference the response to those arguments previously
`
`provided at Apple IPR, Paper 12 at 6-21 (Petitioner’s Reply, Parts IV & V).
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`patentability not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”); see also RPX
`
`Corp. v. Iridescent Networks, Inc., Case IPR2018-00254, Paper 20 at 56 (Dec. 10,
`
`2018) (“By not addressing Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Reddy’s original testimony
`
`in the Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner waived the right to present that
`
`argument.” (citing In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(holding Patent Owner waived argument addressed in Preliminary Response by not
`
`raising it in the Patent Owner Response))).
`
`Because claim 20 is substantially the same as claims 3 and 13, the Board
`
`should find claim 20 unpatentable for the same reasons that the Board found claims
`
`3 and 13 unpatentable. See Apple FWD at 42-45; see also Ohio Willow Wood Co.
`
`v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“If the differences between
`
`the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter
`
`the question of invalidity, collateral estoppel applies.”).
`
`C. Claim 20 is unpatentable because its limitations are disclosed by
`Fabio.
`
`The Board should find that Fabio teaches “adjust[ing] the cadence windows
`
`based on a measured cadence associated with the periodic human motion” as recited
`
`in dependent claim 20. As demonstrated in the Petition, Fabio teaches that “the
`
`validation interval TV for each step is ‘defined with respect to the instant recognition
`
`of the immediately preceding step TR(K-1).’” Ex.1006 at 4:37-39. In other words,
`
`the appropriate cadence window for each step (K) is defined as a window of time
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`based on the immediately preceding step (K-1). Pet. at 46; Ex.1003 at 61. As a
`
`result, the validation interval TV (i.e., the cadence window) for each new step is
`
`continuously adjusted based on the measured timing and duration of the immediately
`
`preceding step. Pet. at 64-65, 72-73; Ex.1003 at 82-84, 94-95. So Fabio discloses
`
`the additional limitation of claim 20 and should be found unpatentable.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments to save claim 20 should be rejected
`because they rely on Patent Owner’s already-rejected “cadence
`window” arguments.
`
`Patent Owner relies on its rejected “cadence window” arguments to argue the
`
`patentability of claim 20. Because each of those arguments is premised on Patent
`
`Owner’s finally-rejected contention that Fabio’s validation interval is retrospective,
`
`the Board should reject each of the arguments here for similar reasons as established
`
`in the Apple FWD.
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s “required cadence window” argument was
`already rejected by the Board in the Apple FWD.
`
`Patent Owner argues that “Fabio does not disclose the required cadence
`
`window(s), because . . . Fabio defines its validation interval (TV) as necessarily
`
`starting before the last step is counted.” Response at 17 (emphasis original). The
`
`Board rejected the same argument for independent claim 15 in the Apple FWD. See
`
`Apple FWD at 31 (“We are not persuaded by the Patent Owner’s arguments, which
`
`are premised on the contention that Fabio is retrospective in that its validation
`
`interval TV is used to validate a prior step (K-1), not to validate the current step
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`(K).”). Specifically, the Board found that Fabio discloses that “the current step has
`
`been recognized (‘instant of recognition of the current step’), and the current step
`
`(K) necessarily occurred more recently than the immediately preceding step (K-1).”
`
`Id. at 32. The Board found that “only recognized steps are subjected to the validation
`
`test.” Id. Accordingly, the Board in the Apple FWD correctly concluded that
`
`Fabio’s validation interval is not retrospective because “it is the currently recognized
`
`step (K) that is being validated, not the preceding step (K-1).”3 Id. at 31. The Board
`
`should similarly reject the same argument here with respect to claim 20, which
`
`depends from claim 15.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s other arguments should be rejected because
`they are based on Patent Owner’s incorrect and rejected
`“retrospective” argument.
`
`Relying on its rejected “retrospective” interpretation of Fabio, Patent Owner
`
`makes two additional arguments for claim 20. Each of them is meritless and should
`
`be rejected.
`
`
`3 The Board recently denied Patent Owner’s Request for rehearing there because
`
`“Patent Owner largely repeats its retrospective argument,” which amounted to “little
`
`more than a request to reconsider arguments already made in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.” IPR2018-00387, Paper No. 23 at 4 (August 16, 2019).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`First, Patent Owner argues that Fabio does not disclose “adjusting a cadence
`
`window based on a measured cadence” because the validation interval “only looks
`
`at the single prior step (and uses the current step to validate the single prior step).”
`
`PO Resp. at 17-18 (emphasis added). That argument relies on the same rejected
`
`premise: that “the current step [is] used to validate the single prior step.” Patent
`
`Owner’s argument fails because it is “the currently recognized step (K) that is being
`
`validated, not the preceding step (K-1).” Apple FWD at 31; see also supra Part
`
`II.D.1.
`
`In addition, the Board has already found (for claims 3 and 13) that Fabio’s
`
`disclosure of using a single prior step to determine a validation window sufficiently
`
`discloses “maintaining a cadence window and updating the cadence window as a
`
`user’s actual cadence changes.” Apple FWD at 43. In particular, the Board found
`
`that “Fabio defines validation interval TV as a function of the duration of the
`
`preceding step: beginning at time TR(K-1) + ½ (ΔTK-1) and ending at time TR(K-1)
`
`+ 2 (ΔTK-1). Thus, as the cadence of a user’s steps changes, the validation interval
`
`TV will also change in corresponding fashion.” Id. In other words, Fabio teaches
`
`updating the cadence window as a user’s actual cadence changes by looking at the
`
`previous step and adjusting a validation interval TV “anew each time a step is
`
`recognized.” Apple FWD at 43. Here, the Board should similarly find that Fabio
`
`teaches “the cadence logic adjusts [or updates] the cadence window” in response to
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`a change in “a measured cadence associated with the periodic human motion” or the
`
`user’s actual cadence as required by claim 20.4 See Ex.1003 at 94-95.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that “Fabio does not disclose any ‘adjust[ing]
`
`based on a measured cadence’ because steps in the system of Fabio are only
`
`validated if the previous step is substantially homogenous with the current step.”
`
`PO Resp. at 18 (emphasis original). That argument is similarly premised on Patent
`
`Owner’s already-rejected “retrospective” argument that Fabio’s validation interval
`
`uses the current step to validate the previous step. As discussed above, the Board
`
`has already rejected the “retrospective” argument because it is “the currently
`
`recognized step (K) that is being validated, not the preceding step (K-1).” Apple
`
`
`4 Patent Owner claims that “Petitioner does not dispute that Fabio (EX1006)’s
`
`[validation interval] only looks at the single prior step (and uses the current step to
`
`validate the single prior step).” PO Resp. at 17. That is incorrect. Petitioner has
`
`consistently argued that it is the current step being validated, not that the current step
`
`is used to validate the prior step. See Pet. at 45-48; see also Apple IPR, Paper 12 at
`
`6-16 (Petitioner’s Reply, Part IV); Apple FWD at 45 (“[W]e find that Fabio validates
`
`and counts the current step (K), not the preceding step (K−1). Accordingly, we are
`
`persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt, that claims 3 and 13 would have
`
`been obvious in view of Pasolini and Fabio.”).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`FWD at 31; see also supra Part II.D.1. Fabio adjusts the cadence window as the
`
`system’s measurement of a user’s actual cadence changes by looking at the previous
`
`step and adjusting the validation interval TV “anew each time a step is recognized.”
`
`Apple FWD at 43.5
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above and in view of the evidence of record, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests the Board find claim 20 unpatentable.
`
`
`5 Patent Owner is incorrect in that Fabio validates steps “only” if the previous step
`
`is substantially homogenous with the current step. See PO Resp. at 18. Fabio
`
`discloses validating steps for homogenous or non-homogenous durations and is not
`
`limited to only validating “substantially homogenous” steps. Fabio’s claim 5 recites
`
`“executing a first validation test of a current detected step.” Ex.1006, claim 5. Claim
`
`6, which depends from claim 5, then recites “wherein said executing said first
`
`validation test of said current detected step comprises evaluating whether a duration
`
`of said current detected step is homogeneous with respect to a duration of an
`
`immediately preceding detected step.” Ex.1006, claim 6 (emphasis added). As a
`
`result, Fabio is not limited to only validating substantially homogenous steps.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Todd E. Landis/
`Todd E. Landis
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,200
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 27, 2019
`Vinson & Elkins LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 37000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Customer No. 22892
`Phone: (214) 220-7700
`Fax: (214) 220-7716
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d), Petitioner hereby certifies, in accordance
`
`with and reliance on the word count provided by the word-processing system used
`
`to prepare this petition, that the number of words in this paper is 2,517. Pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.24(d), this word count excludes the table of contents, table of
`
`authorities, mandatory notices under §42.8, certificate of service, certificate of word
`
`count, appendix of exhibits, and any claim listing.
`
`Dated: August 27, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`/Todd E. Landis/
`Todd E. Landis
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,200
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2018-01589 (Patent No. 7,653,508)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.105, Petitioner’s Reply is being served via overnight mail on the 27th
`
`day of August 2019, the same day as the filing of the above-identified documents in
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon
`
`the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of record with the USPTO
`
`as follows:
`
`Sean Burdick
`
`Uniloc USA Inc.
`
`Legacy Town Center
`
`7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380
`
`Plano, TX 75024
`
`(972) 905-9580
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 27, 2019
`
`/Todd E. Landis/
`Todd E. Landis
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,200
`
`
`
`12
`
`