`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC d/b/a NARTRON,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00359
`Patent 5,796,183
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`Case No. IPR2019-00359
`
`
`Unlike the parties in Valve, Apple and Samsung are unrelated. In Valve,
`
`“Valve and HTC were co-defendants in [a] District Court litigation and were
`
`accused of [infringement] based on the same product.” Valve v. Elec. Scripting,
`
`IPR2019-00062 Paper 13, 9-10 (PTAB 2019). Here, Apple and Samsung have
`
`never been co-defendants in an action involving the ’183 patent, and Apple and
`
`Samsung have completely separate products. Indeed, UUSI sued Apple more than
`
`two years after suing Samsung, “approximately six weeks” after Samsung’s IPR
`
`concluded. Pet., 5; Paper 10, 14. UUSI makes no overlapping allegations between
`
`Apple and Samsung, and did not notice Apple of infringement at the time of its
`
`complaint against Samsung. Thus, unlike the lawsuit against HTC and Valve,
`
`UUSI’s lawsuit against Samsung did nothing at the time of Samsung’s petition to
`
`make Apple aware of a UUSI allegation of ’183 patent infringement by Apple.
`
`Also, Apple’s Petition challenges several claims unchallenged by the
`
`Samsung IPR. See Pet., 1. This further distinguishes the instant case from Valve,
`
`establishing that Apple is not similarly situated to Samsung and that General
`
`Plastic (“GP”) factor one weighs against discretionary denial. See Pet., 5.
`
`The remaining GP factors also weigh against discretionary denial, and
`
`several further distinguish Valve. Because it had not been sued, Apple had no
`
`reason to assess validity of the ’183 patent at the time of Samsung’s petition (GP
`
`factor 2). The length of time between the Samsung IPR and the present IPR and
`
`1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`Case No. IPR2019-00359
`
`
`any inefficiencies related to multiple petitions (GP factors 4-7) are due to UUSI’s
`
`decision to sue Apple after Samsung’s IPR. See Pet., 4-6; POPR, 15.
`
`As to the third GP factor, UUSI alleges “gamesmanship,” but Apple did not
`
`delay its petition to gain a strategic advantage by learning from Samsung’s IPR –
`
`Samsung’s IPR was already complete when UUSI sued Apple. And, this is not a
`
`case like Valve where “Valve submitted a declaration from the same expert that
`
`HTC used” and admittedly addressed “issues” the Board found in denying HTC’s
`
`earlier petition. Valve, 13. Apple used a different expert and, as Patent Owner
`
`admits, did not rely on the same prior art as the Samsung IPR. POPR, 17-18.
`
`If anything, UUSI, not Apple, seeks to gain advantages from Samsung’s
`
`IPR. In its POPR, UUSI alleges an “implicit claim construction” of “selectively
`
`providing signal output frequencies” in the Samsung IPR. POPR, 17, 22-27. The
`
`Board in the Samsung IPR, however, explicitly chose not to construe this term.
`
`Paper 35, 10. Indeed, UUSI’s POPR cites to pages “14-16, 18” for the Board’s
`
`construction, yet the only mention of multiple frequencies in those pages relates to
`
`the Board’s summary of Samsung’s contentions, not the Board’s construction. Id.,
`
`14-16, 18 (“Petitioner contends”). UUSI also argues that, if the Board used a
`
`broad interpretation, it “never would have needed to consider Gerpheide in
`
`combination with Ingraham-Caldwell.” POPR, 25. But all of Samsung’s grounds
`
`involved Gerpheide, making its consideration necessary to evaluate Samsung’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`Case No. IPR2019-00359
`
`
`challenge. By alleging an implicit construction, UUSI uses Samsung’s challenge
`
`to support a narrow interpretation that does not exist in the ’183 patent.
`
`In fact,’183 never describes “a microprocessor capable of generating
`
`multiple frequencies from an oscillator.” POPR, 24. In’183, the only selection
`
`made by the microprocessor is selection of rows to “sequentially activate the touch
`
`circuit rows,” and the only description of varying frequency involves varying
`
`“values of the resistors and capacitors utilized in oscillator 200.” Ex. 1001, 14:22-
`
`25, 18:43-49 (“Microcontroller … selects each row”). Dependent claims 41 and
`
`45 confirm that “selectively providing signal output frequencies” does not require
`
`selection from multiple frequencies, as claim 45 specifies the “same hertz value”
`
`and claim 41 explicitly specifies UUSI’s implicit construction where a frequency
`
`“is selected from a plurality of hertz values.” By attempting to draw an implicit
`
`claim construction through how Samsung chose to style its IPR, UUSI, not Apple,
`
`seeks to gain advantage from the prior IPR (GP factor 3).
`
`Allowing UUSI to benefit from the timing of its litigation filings would
`
`encourage patent owners to “game the system” by timing infringement actions to
`
`avoid IPR challenges from later-sued parties. Exercising discretion under 314(a)
`
`would encourage use of a staggered litigation filing strategy that unjustly
`
`disadvantages future defendants by removing the option of IPR simply because an
`
`earlier, unrelated defendant filed one. Thus, IPR should not be denied under Valve.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 5, 2019___________
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`Case No. IPR2019-00359
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /W. Karl Renner/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Daniel Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza,
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`4
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0062IP5
`Case No. IPR2019-00359
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on June 5,
`
`2019, a complete and entire copy of this PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`
`BRIEF RE DISCRETIONARY DENIAL was provided via email to the Patent
`
`Owner by serving the correspondence email address of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Jonathan A. Roberts
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`901 N. Glebe Road, 11th Floor
`Arlington, VA 22203-1808
`
`Lawrence Hadley
`GLASER WEIL
`10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`jar@nixonvan.com
`jr@nixonvan.com
`lmm@nixonvan.com
`lhadley@glaserweil.com
`
`Email:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`