`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC dba NARTRON
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00356
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S FURTHER BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`DISCRETIONARILY DENYING INSTITUTION UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00356
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`Patent Owner submits this paper in response to the PTAB’s May 22, 2019
`
`Order allowing three-page briefs addressing the precedential Valve decision.
`
`Valve reaffirmed that the Board, under § 314(a), may consider “any
`
`relationship between [the] petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors,”
`
`not just strict privity, or whether petitioners are co-defendants in a single suit. See
`
`Valve at 9 (citing NetApp, IPR2017-01195 (Paper 9)). Valve further affirmed that
`
`no single General Plastic factor or relationship type is dispositive. In this Petition,
`
`Valve solidifies Patent Owner’s arguments for denying institution under § 314(a).
`
`While Valve’s application in this case still supports non-institution under General
`
`Plastic factor one, it further tips factors two through seven firmly to denial.
`
`Factor One: The ’183 Patent is the subject of two patent infringement suits.
`
`The first led Samsung to challenge 30 claims in an IPR, but the Final Written
`
`Decision (FWD) found it failed to show any challenged claim unpatentable. The
`
`second suit, filed 6 weeks after the FWD, led Apple to file six new petitions—
`
`nearly 12 months later.
`
`This factor favors denial here, even though Samsung petitioned first. Valve
`
`at 9. Both petitioners share a common desire to see the same claims invalidated.
`
`Both petitioners are defendants in co-pending lawsuits having the same procedural
`
`posture, i.e., both are stayed pending Samsung’s appeal of its IPR loss. And Apple
`
`challenged the same claims as Samsung. (Apple challenged more claims, but that
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00356
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`is hardly surprising, as it filed six petitions compared to Samsung’s one). Apple
`
`and Samsung are similarly situated and, thus, this factor weighs in favor of denial.
`
`Factor Two: Despite its assertion to the contrary, almost half the references
`
`used in its Petition were known to Apple years before Samsung was even sued. To
`
`avoid using the exact art from the just-concluded IPR, Apple merely picked earlier
`
`patents from the same inventors (Caldwell and Ingraham). As in Valve, Apple
`
`knew of at least some of the alleged “new” references and should have been aware
`
`of others from the research endeavors of the same parties. Cf. id. at 11 (imputing
`
`knowledge between different research groups). This factor strongly favors denial.
`
`Factor Three: Apple learned from the entire Samsung IPR, using it as a
`
`roadmap in locating the few references that it was not already aware of, and in
`
`cherry-picking claim constructions it agreed with while attempting to distinguish
`
`others it did not, as shown in the Preliminary Response. Valve expressly warns
`
`against such behavior. Cf. id. at 12-13. This factor plainly favors denial.
`
`Factors Four and Five: Apple in 2013 was aware of three of the seven
`
`references asserted in this Petition—and was aware of two more (to Ingraham), and
`
`a more relevant version of them, prior to the filing of this IPR, from Samsung’s
`
`IPR. Apple does not provide any credible explanation related to the timing of its
`
`Petition and, as the Board has noted, to the extent a reasonable explanation exists
`
`for Petitioner’s delay, it is incumbent upon Petitioner to identify those
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00356
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`circumstances. And if five months with an intervening change in the law was
`
`excessive in Valve, then surely 12 unexplained months of delay is too much here.
`
`See id. at 14; NetApp (denying institution where patent owner sued petitioner more
`
`than 1 year after suing third parties who petitioned for IPR and petitioner waited 10
`
`months after being sued to petition). This factor favors denial.
`
`Factors Six and Seven: Valve is directly on point: “[H]aving multiple
`
`petitions challenging the same patent, especially when not filed at or around the
`
`same time as in this case, is inefficient and tends to waste resources. Here, Valve
`
`waited until after the institution decision in the [related] IPR, and then filed not one
`
`but three additional petitions.” Id. at 15. Nearly identical facts apply here—i.e.,
`
`serial and repetitive attacks against the same patent, with not one but six additional
`
`IPR petitions, all filed after the earlier FWD. As in Valve, “[t]hese serial and
`
`repetitive attacks implicate the efficiency concerns underpinning General Plastic,
`
`and, thus, favor denying institution.” Id.
`
`Following Valve and General Plastic, institution should be denied.
`
`Date: June 5, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa, Reg. No. 37,515 By: /s/ Lawrence M. Hadley
`Jonathan Roberts, Reg. No. 68,565 Lawrence M. Hadley (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
`GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
`901 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 1100
` AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
`Arlington, Virginia 22203
`10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
`Telephone: (703) 816-4000
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Email: jar@nixonvan.com
`Telephone: (310) 553-3000
`Email: jr@nixonvan.com
`Email: LHadley@Glaserweil.com
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00356
`Patent No. 5,796,183
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the date
`
`indicated below, a complete and entire copy of this submission was provided by
`
`email to Petitioner’s counsel via email, as agreed to by Petitioner’s Service
`
`Information in the Petition submission, by serving the email address of record as
`
`follows:
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Daniel D. Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 202-783-5070
`Fax: 877-769-7945
`IPR39521-0062IP2@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`monaldo@fr.com
`dsmith@fr.com
`
`
`Date: June 5, 2019
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jonathan Roberts
`Jonathan Roberts
`Reg. No. 68,565
`NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
`901 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 1100
`Arlington, Virginia 22203
`Telephone: (703) 816-4000
`Email: jr@nixonvan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`