Mehta, Hersh <hersh.mehta@morganlewis.com>
`Monday, April 29, 2019 2:57 PM
`Precedential_Opinion_Panel_Request
`CHRMC0122IPR1@brookskushman.com; fangileri@brookskushman.com;
`tlewry@brookskushman.com; mlorelli@brookskushman.com;
`csmith@brookskushman.com; HPE-Chrimar-IPR; Hawkins, Brent A.; Doukas, Maria E.;
`Fowler, Karon N.
`IPR2019-00032, -00033: Request for Precedential Opinion Panel Review
`2019-04-29 [IPR2019-00032, 0012] Petitioner's Request for Rehearing.pdf; 2019-04-29
`[IPR2019-00033, 0013] Petitioner's Request for Rehearing.pdf
`
`. F
`
`rom:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Dear Precedential Opinion Panel:
`
`Petitioner in IPR2019-00032 and -00033 requests review by the Precedential Opinion Panel of the attached
`rehearing requests, filed today. Based on my professional judgment, I believe these cases require answers to the
`following precedent-setting questions of exceptional importance:
`
`1. Does a Petitioner’s filing of an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity that is voluntarily dismissed
`under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) bar institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1)?
`
`2. Should the Federal Circuit’s holding in Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed.
`Cir. 2018), which only dealt with the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and the language “served with
`a complaint,” extend to the language “filed a civil action” in 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1)?
`
`Petitioner notes that Ruiz Food Products Inc. and Avigilon Corp. recently filed similar requests regarding
`similar precedent-setting questions that also arose in their IPR proceedings. See Ruiz Food Products Inc. v.
`MacroPoint LLC, IPR2017-02016, IPR2016-02018; Avigilon Corp. v. Canon Inc., IPR2018-01626. This
`confirms both the need to convene a Precedential Opinion Panel and the exceptional importance of the above-
`stated precedent-setting questions.
`
`As the Precedential Opinion Panel may be convened to address issues of exceptional importance regarding
`statutes or issues of broad applicability to the Board, the issues presented in this case are proper for Precedential
`Opinion Panel review. (PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 2, Rev. 10 at Section II(A).) Indeed, as described
`in the accompanying Requests for Rehearing, at issue is the statutory interpretation of § 315(a)(1) in light of the
`Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-To-Call. The impact of this interpretation has broad applicability in light of
`the numerous Board decisions applying Click-To-Call to § 315(a)(1) to deny institution. See, e.g., Mylan
`Pharm. Inc. v. Horizon Pharma USA, Inc., IPR2017-01995 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019); Avigilon Corp. v. Canon
`Inc., IPR2018-01626 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2019); Avigilon Corp. v. Canon Inc., IPR2018-01627 (P.T.A.B. Mar.
`18, 2019).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Hersh Mehta/
`Hersh Mehta (Reg. 62,336)
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive, Fifth Floor
`Chicago, IL 60601
`
`1
`
`IPR2019-00032
`IPR2019-00033
`Ex. 3001
`P. 1 of 2
`
`

`

`(312) 324-1739
`
`Attorney for Petitioner, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.
`
`DISCLAIMER
`This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use
`of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an
`attorney-client communication and as such privileged and
`confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.
`If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,
`copy or distribute this message. If you have received this
`communication in error, please notify us immediately by
`e-mail and delete the original message.
`
`IPR2019-00032
`IPR2019-00033
`Ex. 3001
`P. 1 of 2
`
`2
`
`