UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURING INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION,1
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case No. IPR2019-00500
`Patent No. 9,737,154
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`1 Sleep Number Corporation, not Select Comfort Corporation, is the patent owner.
`
`To date, Petitioner has not made any effort to rectify this error.
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`THE PETITION IS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT. ................................. 2
`A.
`The Petition Is Untimely and Should Not Be Accorded a Filing
`Date. .................................................................................................... 2
`i.
`Petitioner Did Not Serve the “Correspondence Address
`of Record.” ................................................................................. 5
`The Petition Is Defective and Was Not Served “On the
`Patent Owner.” ........................................................................... 7
`Patent Owner Is Prejudiced by Petitioner’s Actions................ 11
`iii.
`The Petition Is Impermissibly Non-Specific, Conclusory, and
`Confusing. .......................................................................................... 16
`i.
`The Petition Fails to Sufficiently Identify Challenged
`Grounds. ................................................................................... 16
`The Petition Fails to Sufficiently Identify the Claims. ............ 18
`The Petition’s Claim-by-Claim Analysis Includes
`Impermissible Cross-Referencing. ........................................... 20
`The Declaration of Joshua Phinney is Conclusory and Deficient
`and Thus the Petition is Based on Attorney Argument ...................... 21
`DESCRIPTION OF THE ‘154 PATENT AND PRIOR ART. .................... 23
`A.
`The ‘154 Patent. ................................................................................. 23
`B.
`Summary of the Asserted Art. ............................................................ 26
`i.
`Gifft: USPN 5,904,172 (Ex. 1004). ......................................... 26
`ii. Mittal: USPN 5,629,873 (Ex. 1005). ....................................... 28
`iii.
`Pillsbury: USPN 5,277,187 (Ex. 1006).................................... 31
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`II.
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`iii.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`IV.
`
`Ebel: U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0000559 (Ex. 1007). ...................... 33
`iv.
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 34
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. ........................................................................ 34
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art. ..................................................... 34
`B.
`Petitioner Failed to Construe “Pressure Sensing Means.” ................. 35
`C.
`“Determining” Should Be Given Its Plain and Ordinary Meaning. ... 37
`EACH OF THE PETITION’S GROUNDS RELIES ON NON-
`ANALOGOUS ART. ................................................................................... 39
`A.
`Pillsbury is From a Different Field of Endeavor. ............................... 39
`B.
`Pillsbury Is Not Reasonably Pertinent to the Problem. ...................... 40
`PETITIONER HAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ARTICULATED AN
`ADEQUATE RATIONALE TO COMBINE THE ASSERTED
`REFERENCES. ............................................................................................ 42
`A.
`Petitioner’s Motivations to Combine Are Conclusory. ...................... 44
`B.
`A POSITA Would Not Be Motivated to Combine Gifft with
`Mittal. ................................................................................................. 45
`i.
`Petitioner’s Stated Motivation to Combine Would Not
`Motivate a POSITA to Combine Gifft with Mittal. ................. 46
`There Is No Motivation to Combine Gifft and Mittal
`Because the Teachings of the References Are at Odds
`With One Another. ................................................................... 47
`Petitioner Fails to Identify a Motivation to Combine Gifft or
`Mittal with Pillsbury or Ebel. ............................................................. 52
`PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS ARE BASED ON
`IMPERMISSIBLE HINDSIGHT ................................................................. 54
`
`V.
`
`ii.
`
`C.
`
`VI.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`B.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Engaged in Impermissible Hindsight Bias By Cherry-
`Picking Elements to Purportedly Demonstrate the Claimed
`Elements of the Invention Were Known In the Prior Art. ................. 56
`Petitioner’s Failure to Articulate How the Asserted References
`Would Be Combined to Render the Claims Obvious Leaves Only
`Hindsight Bias. ................................................................................... 57
`VII. PETITIONER FAILS TO ADEQUATELY IDENTIFY THE
`LIMITATIONS OF THE CLAIMS IN THE ASSERTED ART. ................ 61
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 63
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ..................................................................... 64
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 65
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 34
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00449, Paper 10 (July 15, 2015) ................................................... 20, 44
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00453, Paper 9 (PTAB July 13, 2015) ................................................ 59
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA,
`IPR2017-02202, Paper 8 (PTAB May 1, 2018) ................................................. 22
`Avant Tech., Inc. v. Anza Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00828, Paper 7 (Oct. 16, 2018) ....................................................passim
`Belden Inc. v. BerkTek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 43
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 39
`Blackberry Corp. v. NXP B.V., Case
`IPR2013-00232, Paper 9 (Sept. 30, 2013) .................................................... 10, 11
`Blackberry Corp. v. NXP B.V.,
`IPR2013-00232, 2013 WL 6514076 (PTAB Dec. 6, 2013) ......................... 10, 11
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 40
`Conmed Corp. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC,
`IPR2013-00624, Paper 18 (PTAB Feb. 21, 2014) ................................................ 8
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 38
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech, LLC,
`IPR2017-00526, Paper 14 (PTAB July 17, 2017) ...................................... 2, 4, 13
`Del Raine v. Carlson,
`826 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 12
`Diaz v. Dep’t of Air Force,
`63 F.3d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 13
`DIRECTV, LLC v. Qurio Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-02007, Paper 6 (PTAB Apr. 4, 2016) ..................................... 18, 20, 45
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01006, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2017) ............................................. 37
`Fidelity Nat’l Info. Servs., Inc., v. Datatreasury Corp.,
`IPR2014-00489, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2014) ............................................... 19
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS,
`IPR2014-01417, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2015) ........................................... 4, 13
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 52
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 42
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed.Cir. 1994) ............................................................................... 48
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 20
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 43
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00493, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) .................................................. 36
`Infinera Corp. v. Core Optical Techs., LLC,
`IPR2018-01259, Paper 9 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2019) .......................................... 36, 37
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 55
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 55
`In re Kotzab,
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 55
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 42, 48, 56
`Mann v. Castiel,
`681 F.3d 368 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 12
`Ex Parte Mcdonald,
`Appeal 2009-002329, 2009 WL 2007186 (PTAB July 9, 2009) ....................... 43
`Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC,
`711 F. App’x 633 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 57
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 54, 55, 56
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. e.Digital Corp.,
`IPR2015-00519, Paper 14 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015) ......................................passim
`Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.,
`526 U.S. 344 (1999) ............................................................................................ 12
`Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. v. Britax Child Safety, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01683, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2018) ............................................. 14
`In re Oetiker,
`977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 40
`Ex Parte Patrick C. Tessier & Jeffrey S. Hartzler,
`Appeal 2012-006616, 2014 WL 4925550 (PTAB Sept. 30, 2014) .............. 52, 53
`Personal Web Tech., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 55, 56
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 34, 38
`Plaid Techs., Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00275, Paper 15 (PTAB June 9, 2016) ........................................passim
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 42, 55
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 48, 50
`Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 37
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................................ 48
`Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00367, Paper 62 (PTAB May 26, 2015) ............................................. 40
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 61
`
`Sirius XM Radio, Inc. v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Förderung Der
`Angewandten Forschung E.V.,
`IPR2018-00690, Paper 16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2018) ............................................... 14
`Sony Corp. v. Collabo Innovations, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00938, 2016 WL 7056514 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2016) .............................. 43
`Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper,
`IPR2014-00158, Paper 10 (PTAB May 15, 2014) ....................................... 52, 53
`TD Bank, N.A. v. Global Session Holdings SRL,
`IPR2014-01350, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2014) ............................................... 8
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC,
`IPR2016-00281, Paper 21 (PTAB May 23, 2016) ............................................... 4
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 35
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 35
`In re Vaidyanathan,
`381 F. App’x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 56
`Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion Inc.,
`No. C-08-05129 (JCS), 2011 WL 4079223 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12,
`2011) ................................................................................................................... 43
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang,
`202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 43
`Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.,
`IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) ............................................. 13
`ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2018-00241, Paper 9 (PTAB July 2, 2018) .................................................. 37
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §112 ................................................................................................... 35, 39
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ...................................................................................... 16, 18, 19, 21
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............................................................................................. 12, 13
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 1.33(a) ................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ................................................................................................... 2, 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.3 ....................................................................................................... 13
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) .................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 19
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ...................................................................................... 16, 19
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 13
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ............................................................................................passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ........................................................................................... 2, 7, 13
`77 Fed. Reg. 7,041 ..................................................................................................... 6
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 ................................................................................................. 34
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`Description
`Declaration of Dr. William Messner
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2001
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154
`
`PAIR Correspondence Address of Record for U.S. Patent No.
`8,769,747
`
`PAIR Correspondence Address of Record for U.S. Patent No.
`9,737,154
`
`PAIR Correspondence Address of Record for U.S. Patent No.
`5,904,172
`
`Declaration of Lukas D. Toft
`
`PAIR Assignment History of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747
`
`PAIR Assignment History of U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154
`
`PAIR Assignment History of U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`Sleep Number v. Sizewise (TX) Complaint
`
`Sleep Number v. ANM (TX) Complaint
`
`Ex. E to Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions from District Court.
`
`Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary Excerpt
`
`Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary Excerpt
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Sleep Number Corporation (“Patent Owner” or “Sleep
`
`Number”) has been an innovator in the field of adjustable air mattresses for decades.
`
`Sleep Number sells adjustable air bed and related products, most notably the Sleep
`
`Number® bed, which allows consumers throughout the United States to easily
`
`adjust the firmness of their beds, as desired.
`
`On April 4, 2008, Sleep Number filed a patent application on an improvement
`
`in adjusting pressure in the growing field of adjustable air mattresses, which resulted
`
`in the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154 (“the ‘154 Patent” or “Mahoney”). The
`
`invention taught by the ‘154 Patent allows for quick and accurate pressure
`
`adjustment that is customizable to the user and environment.
`
`The instant inter partes review Petition was filed by Petitioner, American
`
`National Manufacturing, Inc. (“Petitioner”) on December 21, 2018, challenging the
`
`patentability of each of the 22 claims in the ’154 Patent. Petitioner, however, has
`
`ignored a multitude of procedural rules and regulations. As a result, the Petition
`
`suffers from substantial procedural defects. In addition, because Petitioner ignored
`
`or failed to apply controlling law, the Petition does not establish a prima facie case
`
`of obviousness and Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of success
`
`with respect to any patent claim. Because of Petitioner’s blatant and incurable
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`procedural and substantive failures, Sleep Number respectfully requests the Board
`
`deny institution.
`
`I.
`
`THE PETITION IS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT.
`Petitioner has violated multiple
`rules and
`regulations, sometimes
`
`intentionally, each rendering the Petition procedurally deficient and warranting
`
`denial of institution. Specifically, the Petition names the wrong patent owner and
`
`service was improper, rendering the Petition incomplete and untimely. Additionally,
`
`the Petition fails to adequately identify the grounds or the challenged claim elements,
`
`impermissibly incorporates by reference and cross-reference, and is otherwise
`
`confusing and conclusory. Finally, because the supporting expert declaration is
`
`unsupported by evidence, the Petitioner’s arguments constitute improper conclusory
`
`attorney argument.
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Is Untimely and Should Not Be Accorded a Filing
`Date.
`Congress and the PTO provide clear and simple requirements for service and
`
`clear consequences for violating them. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a), a petition
`
`is not complete and “will not be accorded a filing date” until several requirements
`
`have been met, including those under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104, 42.105(a), and 42.15(a).
`
`The PTAB requires complete compliance with each of these underlying provisions
`
`of 37 C.F.R. § 42.106. See, e.g., Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech, LLC, IPR2017-00526,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`Paper 14 at 7-14 (PTAB July 17, 2017) (holding no filing date should be accorded
`
`until full payment was received, “not merely tendered,” pursuant to §§ 42.15(a) and
`
`42.103); Plaid Techs., Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc., IPR2016-00275, Paper 15 at 5-14 (PTAB
`
`June 9, 2016) (holding no filing date should be accorded where patent owner was
`
`not served under § 42.105 and petition did not include all supporting evidence under
`
`§ 42.104). Patent owners are “entitled to rely on the statutory and regulatory
`
`provisions governing service.” Plaid, IPR2016-00275, Paper 15 at 9.
`
`Under Rule 42.105(a), there are two service requirements: the petition and
`
`supporting evidence must be (1) “served on the patent owner” and (2) served “at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the subject patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a). A
`
`petitioner who failed to consult the PTO’s database has not made “a good faith
`
`attempt to comply with Rule 42.105(a).” Micron Tech., Inc. v. e.Digital Corp.,
`
`IPR2015-00519, Paper 14 at 5 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015).
`
`In Micron, the petitioner served the firm of Thorpe, North & Western
`
`(“Thorpe”) in December 2014. Id. at 3. While Thorpe was previously listed as the
`
`correspondence address of record until October 2014, the correspondence address of
`
`record was changed on October 30, 2014, to the law office of Robert E Purcell,
`
`PLLC. Id. Accordingly, the PTAB held the petitioner’s service on the patent owner
`
`at Thorpe “failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a).” Id. at 4-5. Indeed, because
`
`of the simplicity of discovering a patent owner’s service information using the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`PTO’s Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) portal, the PTAB found
`
`petitioner’s failure to consult the PTO’s database was “not a good faith attempt to
`
`comply with Rule 42.105(a).” Id. at 5. While the PTAB exercised its discretion under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) to allow the Micron petition to proceed, it should not do so here.
`
`In Micron, the petitioner had attempted, even if not a good faith attempt, to effect
`
`service on the correctly-named patent owner at the address it thought was the
`
`correspondence address of record. Id. at 5-6. Here, Petitioner made no effort to serve
`
`the correspondence address, and, in fact, made a deliberate decision not to do so.
`
`Other PTAB decisions confirm that dismissal of the petition as untimely is
`
`proper when petitioner fails to comply with the regulations. See, e.g., Cultec,
`
`IPR2017-00526, Paper 14 at 14 (denying institution where payment was tendered
`
`but not received because petitioner ignored limits and warning on payment options
`
`and because of an inability to correct the error within the statutory period due to the
`
`late filing created by petitioner’s actions); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. MonoSol Rx,
`
`LLC, IPR2016-00281, Paper 21 at 3, 10-14 (PTAB May 23, 2016) (same); Plaid,
`
`IPR2016-00275, Paper 15 at 13-15 (denying institution when service was not
`
`adequately effected within one-year bar and it was petitioner’s decision to wait until
`
`the end of the bar to file, leaving no margin for error); Galderma S.A. v. Allergan
`
`Industrie, SAS, IPR2014-01417, Paper 15 at 3-4 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2015) (denying
`
`institution where petitioner failed to comply with statutory requirements).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`Here, as discussed below, Petitioner failed to comply with either requirement
`
`of Rule 42.105(a). Despite having actual and constructive knowledge of the correct
`
`patent owner and correspondence address of record, Petitioner both failed to (1)
`
`serve the patent owner and (2) serve the correspondence address of record for the
`
`subject patent. Moreover, Petitioner’s violations, unlike in Micron, were intentional
`
`and prejudicial.
`
`i.
`
`Petitioner Did Not Serve the “Correspondence Address of
`Record.”
`Petitioner failed to serve the Petition “at the correspondence address of record
`
`for the subject patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a). Petitioner sent a copy of the Petition
`
`to two different addresses, neither of which are the correspondence address of record
`
`for the ‘154 Patent, which is PO Box 1022 Minneapolis, MN 55440. (See Petition,
`
`Paper 2 (herein “Pet.”) at 66; Ex. 2005.) Petitioner did not attempt to comply with
`
`this Rule. Indeed, Petitioner’s counsel admitted to the Board that they knew what
`
`the correct correspondence address of record was when serving the Petition, but
`
`deliberately chose to serve two other addresses by FedEx instead of the P.O. Box
`
`address of record. (See Ex. 2007 ¶ 3 (Petitioner admitted during the March 20, 2019,
`
`call with the Board that its service decisions were based on the fact that FedEx does
`
`not deliver to P.O. Boxes.).)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`Petitioner did not even serve the Petition on Sleep Number’s headquarters,
`
`instead serving it on two law firms. While § 42.105(a) permits “additionally” serving
`
`the Petition at another address “known to the petitioner as likely to effect service,”
`
`such service does not satisfy the statutory requirement.2 Petitioner “must” still effect
`
`service “at the correspondence address of record.” See § 42.105(a). Petitioner
`
`intentionally did not do so.
`
`Because the correct correspondence address of record was publicly available
`
`and Petitioner did not serve that address, Petitioner has “failed to comply” with the
`
`2 The purpose behind this “additionally” language was to allow service at a second
`
`address where, e.g., the patent owner has failed to maintain the correct
`
`correspondence address of record. 77 Fed. Reg. 7,041, 7,045. In such situations, the
`
`incorrect address is directly related to patent owner’s actions, not petitioner’s
`
`actions. In Micron, the PTAB noted that one example of a good faith effort to comply
`
`with the statute occurs when petitioner relies upon out-of-date information but works
`
`diligently to effectuate service upon learning the information was incorrect.
`
`IPR2015-00519, Paper 14 at 5, n.1. Here, on the other hand, Patent Owner had
`
`maintained the correct correspondence address of record and it was Petitioner who
`
`deliberately chose to ignore it, which is not evidence of good faith.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`requirements of § 42.105(a). See Micron, IPR2015-00519, Paper 14 at 4-5. Unlike
`
`the petitioner in Micron, Petitioner did not even attempt to make service on the
`
`correspondence address of record, removing any possible justification for its
`
`violation. Petitioner deliberately violated its regulatory obligations by ignoring the
`
`correct address, choosing instead to serve the Petition on two other addresses it knew
`
`were not the correspondence address of record. (See id.) Under the regulation,
`
`serving these other addresses does not replace or satisfy the explicit requirement to
`
`serve Patent Owner at the correspondence address of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a).
`
`Petitioner’s failure warrants the Board’s rescission of the Petition’s accorded filing
`
`date under 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a)(2).
`
`ii.
`
`The Petition Is Defective and Was Not Served “On the Patent
`Owner.”
`Petitioner also failed to correctly name and effect service “on the patent
`
`owner,” despite being on actual and constructive notice of the correct patent owner.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a). As in any other legal action, this regulatory mandate
`
`requires petitioners to conduct a pre-filing investigation and correctly identify the
`
`adverse party. In fact, the PTAB has made clear that the failure to name the proper
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`patent owner is not merely a clerical error.3 See, e.g., TD Bank, N.A. v. Global
`
`Session Holdings SRL, IPR2014-01350, Paper 11 at 4-7 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2014).
`
`The requirement of serving the “patent owner” ensures that a patent owner is
`
`timely put on notice that its property rights have been challenged. A petition naming
`
`the wrong patent owner fails to provide the correct patent owner such notice and
`
`improperly shifts the burden of locating and serving the correct party to the counsel
`
`of record (law firms representing hundreds or thousands of clients). This is not the
`
`rule. Allowing petitioners to skirt this requirement would eviscerate the statutory
`
`3 Any attempt to characterize the incorrectly-identified patent owner as a
`
`“typographical error” must be rejected. First, this was an argument raised for the first
`
`time during the March 20, 2019 call with the Board and only in response to the
`
`suggestion by the Panel. Second, Petitioner has an obligation to review the filing and
`
`even a cursory review of the Petition would have alerted Petitioner of this error. See
`
`Conmed Corp. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC, IPR2013-00624, Paper 18 at 8
`
`(PTAB Feb. 21, 2014). Indeed, even after Sleep Number notified Petitioner of this
`
`issue on January 10, 2019, Petitioner took no action to remedy its error, e.g., by filing
`
`a motion to amend the caption or correct a typographical error.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`requirements that are imposed for a reason—to protect patent owners and to provide
`
`clarity to the parties and the PTO alike.
`
`Any contention that a petition naming the incorrect patent owner is not
`
`defective or is properly served so long as it is delivered to the correspondence
`
`address of record is not only contrary to the express language of § 42.105(a), but
`
`also strains common sense. Allowing a petitioner to forgo these statutory
`
`requirements would result in many unknowns for patent owners, counsel, and the
`
`PTO. For example, could any entity, whether in the chain of assignment or not, be
`
`named as the patent owner so long as the address is correct? What if the entity no
`
`longer exists, or never did? What if the patent number itself is incorrectly identified?
`
`What if the counsel of record is unable to correctly decipher whose rights the petition
`
`is intending to challenge? The PTO’s requirement to correctly identify and serve the
`
`petition “on the patent owner” forecloses the need to address these and many other
`
`issues and ensures consistency in all cases.
`
`Here,
`
`the Petition’s caption
`
`incorrectly
`
`identifies “Select Comfort
`
`Corporation” (“Select Comfort”) as the patent owner. But Petitioner had ample
`
`notice identifying “Sleep Number Corporation” as the correct patent owner to be
`
`served. While Select Comfort was previously the owner of the ‘154 Patent, it
`
`assigned ownership to Sleep Number in 2017, and Sleep Number recorded those
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`assignments with the PTO’s PAIR database in November 2017. (Ex. 2009.) This
`
`gave Petitioner constructive notice of the correct patent owner.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner had actual notice of the correct Patent Owner. On
`
`December 29, 2017, Sleep Number filed suit against Petitioner in the Northern
`
`District of Texas, which, on February 20, 2018, was dismissed and refiled in the
`
`Central District of California. In each of these district court complaints, Sleep
`
`Number stated: “Sleep Number is the sole owner by assignment” of the ‘154 Patent
`
`and “By way of assignment, Sleep Number owns all right, title, and interest in the
`
`‘154 patent, including the exclusive right to seek damages for past, current, and
`
`future infringement thereof.” (Exs. 1016 ¶¶ 19, 55; 1017 ¶¶ 19, 55; 2011 ¶¶ 17, 42;
`
`2012 ¶¶ 17, 42.) These statements provided Petitioner actual notice of Patent
`
`Owner’s identity nearly a year before filing the Petition, information Petitioner
`
`ignored. Petitioner cannot chose to ignore known facts and be found to comply with
`
`the Rules. Accordingly, Petitioner has not served the Petition “on the patent owner”
`
`in accordance with § 42.105(a).
`
`Petitioner previously identified Blackberry Corp. v. NXP B.V. to support its
`
`argument that the Petition should not be dismissed. Blackberry Corp. v. NXP B.V.,
`
`IPR2013-00232, 2013 WL 6514076 (P.T.O. Dec. 6, 2013) (denying rehearing);
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. NXP B.V., Case IPR2013-00232, Paper 9 at 23-24 (Sept. 30,
`
`2013) (instituting inter partes review). The decision to institute in the Blackberry
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IRP2019-00500
`Patent 9,737,154
`
`case, however, is inapposite. In that case, unlike here, it was undisputed that the
`
`petitioner named the correct patent owner and served the patent owner—NXP
`
`B.V.—at the correct correspondence address of record. Bla