`
`
`
`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. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Service Was Not Effectuated On the Correspondence
`
`Because the Petition is Incomplete, Its Filing Date Should Be
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`THE PETITION IS BARRED BY PETITIONER’S PRIOR ACTION ........ 3
`PATENT OWNERSHIP AND SERVICE DEFECTS.................................. 6
`A.
`Patent Owner and Real Party in Interest ............................................. 6
`B.
`Rescinded .......................................................................................... 6
`1.
`The Patent Owner Was Not Served .......................................... 8
`2.
`Address of Record ..................................................................11
`3.
`Patent Owner Is Prejudiced by Petitioner’s Actions ................13
`IV. THE PETITION’S REHASHED ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE
`REJECTED.................................................................................................16
`Relevant Prosecution History ............................................................17
`A.
`1.
`Was Overcome .......................................................................17
`2.
`Shafer Was Again Overcome ..................................................18
`B.
`The 2014 Petition for Inter Partes Review Was Denied....................20
`C.
`Reconfirmed Over the Same or Similar Prior Art ..............................20
`THE ’172 PATENT AND ITS LITIGATION HISTORY ...........................21
`A.
`The ’172 Patent .................................................................................21
`B.
`The State of the Prior Art ..................................................................23
`
`During the Initial Prosecution, Art Analogous to Shafer
`
`During a 2012 Ex Parte Reexamination, Analogous Art to
`
`In Prior ITC Litigation, the Validity of the ’172 Patent Was
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Propose a Construction It Believes Is
`
`Petitioner Fails to Identify Specific Portions of the
`
`that Shafer (Ex-1007) Discloses All Limitations of Claims 2, 12,
`
`Shafer Does Not “Necessarily” Have a Substantially Fluidly
`
`Shafer Does Not Disclose “Guides and Stops… For
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................24
`A.
`Petitioner Fails to Construe “Pressure Monitor Means.” ...................25
`1.
`Correct ....................................................................................25
`2.
`Specification to Support Its Construction ................................27
`VII. PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE ANY REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING ON ANY OF GROUNDS 1 TO 13 ......28
`A. Ground 1 Should Be Denied - Petitioner Has Failed to Establish
`and 22 ...............................................................................................32
`1.
`Sealed Air Chamber ................................................................33
`2.
`Correctly Positioning Components.” .......................................35
`B.
`Enclosure Assembly of Claims 6, 16, 20, and 24 ..............................36
`C.
`Kashiwamura ....................................................................................40
`D. Ground 4 Should Be Denied Because It Is Procedurally Defective
`and Petitioner Has Not Established Prima Facie Obviousness ..........42
`E.
`1007) Would Be Modified to Incorporate Dye ..................................44
`F.
`Combination of References ...............................................................45
`
`Ground 2 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Uses Hindsight and Fails
`to Explain How a POSITA Would Modify Shafer (Ex-1007) to
`Add the Hermetic Seal of Grant (Ex-1008) to Arrive at the Valve
`
`Ground 3 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Fails to Explain Why a
`POSITA Would Consider Kashiwamura (Ex-1009) and How
`Shafer (Ex-1007) Would Be Modified to Incorporate
`
`Ground 5 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Fails to Explain Why a
`POSITA Would Consider Dye (Ex-1010) and How Shafer (Ex-
`
`Ground 6 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Fails to Address the
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`POSITA Would Consider Cammack (Ex-1011) and How Shafer
`(Ex-1007) Would Be Modified to Incorporate Cammack to Arrive
`
`Ground 9 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Fails to Explain Why a
`POSITA Would Consider Cammack (Ex-1011) and How Shafer
`
`Ground 10 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Fails to Address the
`Combination of Shafer, Kashiwamura, and Cammack and How
`
`Vrzalik Does Not Disclose a “Flexible Seal . . . Between the
`
`G. Ground 7 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Fails to Explain Why a
`at the Valve Enclosure Assembly of Claim 12 ..................................46
`H. Ground 8 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Fails to Specifically
`Address the Asserted Combination of References .............................48
`I.
`(Ex-1007) Would Be Modified to Incorporate ..................................49
`J.
`Shafer (Ex-1007) Would Be Modified to Incorporate Them .............51
`K. Ground 11 Should Be Denied - Petitioner Fails to Establish that
`Vrzalik (Ex-1012) Discloses All Claim Limitations ..........................52
`1.
`Vrzalik Does Not Disclose “Guides and Stops.” .....................53
`2.
`Enclosure Portion and a Rear Cover Portion.” ........................54
`L.
`Incorporate Shafer’s Solenoid ...........................................................58
`M. Ground 13 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Has Failed to Show
`Ramacier (Ex-1014) ..........................................................................60
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................60
`
`Ground 12 Should Be Denied – Petitioner Has Failed to Show
`How a POSITA Could Modify Vrzalik to Remove the Motors and
`
`How a POSITA Could Modify Shafer to Incorporate the Design of
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Am. Nat’l Mfg. v. Select Comfort Corp., et al.,
`Case No. 16-cv-00582-GHK-JC (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) ............................... 4
`
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00449, Paper 10 (PTAB July 15, 2015)................................. 42, 43, 49
`
`Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 38
`
`Avant Tech., Inc. v. Anza Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00828, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) .............................................. 29
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 24
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) .............................................. 16
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 32
`
`BioGatekeeper, Inc. v. Kyoto Univ.,
`IPR2014-01286, 2015 WL 604984 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2015) .............................. 41
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. NXP B.V.,
`IPR2013-00232, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 30, 2013) ....................................... 10, 11
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. NXP B.V.,
`2013 WL 6514076 (PTAB Dec. 6, 2013) ................................................... 10, 11
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.,
`157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 4
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00511, Paper 9 (PTAB July 15, 2015) .............................................. 29
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`CareFusion Corp. v. Baxter Int’l Inc.,
`IPR2016-01456, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2017) ................................................ 27
`
`Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 5
`
`Conmed Corp. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC,
`IPR2013-00624, Paper 18 (PTAB Feb. 21, 2014) .............................................. 9
`
`Cont’l Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................. 32, 33
`
`Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC,
`IPR2017-00526, Paper 14 (PTAB July 17, 2017)..................................... 6, 7, 14
`
`Del Raine v. Carlson,
`826 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 14
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ 31
`
`Diaz v. Dep’t of Air Force,
`63 F.3d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2015-01664, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2016) .............................................. 24
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-00985, Paper 17 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2017) ............................................. 26
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2017-01006, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2017) ..................................... 26, 28
`
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS,
`IPR2014-01417, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2015) ......................................... 8, 14
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................... 1
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. Enzo Life Sci., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00019, Paper 17 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2018) ...................................... 26, 27
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00493, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) .......................................... 26, 28
`
`Infinera Corp. v. Core Optical Techs., LLC,
`IPR2018-01259, Paper 9 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2019) ............................................... 27
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................ 30, 59, 60
`
`IntroMedic Co., Ltd. v. Given Imaging, Ltd.,
`IPR2015-00579, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 5, 2015) ............................................... 16
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 2, 30
`
`Mann v. Castiel,
`681 F.3d 368 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 13
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 31
`
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................ 32, 39, 41
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. e.Digital Corp.,
`IPR2015-00519, Paper 14 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015)........................................ 7, 12
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 60
`
`Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.,
`526 U.S. 344 (1999) ......................................................................................... 13
`
`Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. v. Britax Child Safety, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01683, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2018) ...................................... 14, 15
`
`Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore,
`439 U.S. 322 (1979) ........................................................................................... 5
`
`Ex Parte Patrick C. Tessier & Jeffrey S. Hartzler,
`Appeal 2012-006616, 2014 WL 4925550 (PTAB Sept. 30, 2014) ................... 46
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................. 38, 41
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 24, 27
`
`Plaid Tech., Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00275, Paper 15 (PTAB June 9, 2016) ....................................... passim
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................. 38, 59
`
`Rexnord Indus., LLC v. Kappos,
`705 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 32, 54
`
`Ruiz Food Prods., Inc., v. Macropoint LLC,
`IPR2017-02018, Paper 22 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019) .............................................. 5
`
`Sandt Tech. v. Resco Metal & Plastics,
`264 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................. 51, 52
`
`Spansion, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`629 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 33
`
`Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper,
`IPR2014-00158, Paper 10 (PTAB May 15, 2014) ...................................... 46, 47
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................ 30, 32, 53
`
`TD Bank, N.A. v. Global Session Holdings SRL,
`IPR2014-01350, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2014) .............................................. 9
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC,
`IPR2016-00281, Paper 21 (PTAB May 23, 2016) .............................................. 8
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-00422, Paper 12 (PTAB July 6, 2016) ........................................ 25, 26
`
`Unilever, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, slip op. (PTAB July 7, 2014) ................................................. 16
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 46
`
`Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp.,
`757 F. App’x 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................... 5
`
`Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp.,
`916 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.,
`IPR2013-00606, Paper 13 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014)............................................ 14
`
`ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2018-00241, Paper 9 (PTAB July 2, 2018) .......................................... 26, 28
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 25 ...................................................................................................... 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .................................................................................. 29, 35, 52, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................... 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ............................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .................................................................................................... 16
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.33 .................................................................................................... 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.3 ............................................................................................. passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ............................................................................................. passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 .................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 .................................................................................................. 42
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................ 14
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ......................................................................................... passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ......................................................................................... passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ...................................................................................... 6, 12, 14
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 7,041 ................................................................................................ 12
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 .............................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`Declaration of Dr. William Messner
`
`First Amended Complaint from ANM v. Select Comfort Corp.
`Antitrust Action
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,509,154 to Shafer
`
`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
`
`Denial of Request for Reconsideration in IPR2014-01419
`
`Initial Determination in ITC proceeding, Inv. No. 337-TA-971
`
`Commission Opinion in ITC proceeding, Inv. No. 337-TA-971
`
`A Systematic Approach to Integral Snap-Fit Attachment Design
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,372,218 to Manson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,373,526 to Zellos
`
`List of HVAC articles
`
`Field Investigation of Duct System Performance in California
`Light Commercial Buildings
`
`New Technologies for Residential HVAC Ducts
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,652,484 to Shafer
`
`The Mechatronics Handbook
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,857,081 to Gebelein
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Patent Owner Sleep
`
`Number Corporation (“Patent Owner” or “Sleep Number”) hereby submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“the Petition”) of
`
`claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, 20, 22, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 (“the ’172 Patent”)
`
`filed by American National Manufacturing Inc. (“ANM” or “Petitioner”) on thirteen
`
`Grounds.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`The ’172 Patent has withstood multiple challenges. Its claims were examined
`
`and allowed during the original examination in the late 1990s, were again considered
`
`and allowed during a reexamination challenge in 2012, and then survived a 2014
`
`challenge via inter partes review (“IPR”), where institution was denied. Petitioner
`
`also unsuccessfully challenged the claims in the U.S. International Trade
`
`Commission (“ITC”). Petitioner now seeks to expend the resources of the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) and Patent Owner on yet another
`
`challenge to the validity of the ’172 Patent in what is essentially a “follow-on
`
`petition.” Such a follow-on petition “raise[s] the potential for abuse,” and should
`
`not be instituted. Gen. Plastic Indus. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`
`Paper 19 at 17 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential).
`
`As an initial matter, the Petition is procedurally defective for many reasons.
`
`First, the Petition is barred by a previously-filed civil action challenging the validity
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`of the ’172 patent. Second, because the Petition fails to name the correct patent
`
`owner, and was also improperly served, it is incomplete and not entitled to a filing
`
`date. Third, the arguments and asserted prior art in the Petition are substantially the
`
`same as those already considered. For these reasons alone, the Board should exercise
`
`its discretion and deny institution.
`
`Notwithstanding these procedural deficiencies, the Petition also fails to
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood of success as to any challenged claim. Petitioner
`
`asserts thirteen Grounds challenging the validity of claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, 20, 22, and
`
`24, and each fails to state Petitioner’s challenge with particularity. Citations are
`
`incorrect, evidence and analysis are missing, allegations are supported by attorney
`
`argument only, arguments are impermissibly incorporated by reference, and alleged
`
`combinations of references are not addressed at all.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments that the claims are invalid also fail on the merits. First,
`
`for anticipation in Grounds 1 and 11, based respectively on Shafer and Vrzalik
`
`(defined below), Petitioner fails to articulate where each claim element is found in
`
`the art. Second, for Grounds 2-10, 12, and 13, the Petition and the Giachetti Report
`
`utterly fail to establish prima facie obviousness. Most glaring is that Petitioner has
`
`failed to analyze evidence in view of KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`406 (2007).
`
`As detailed in the accompanying Declaration of Dr. William Messner, a
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`professor and leading expert in the field of mechanical engineering, Petitioner’s
`
`anticipation and obviousness arguments are not technically sound. Because neither
`
`the Petition nor the Giachetti Report establishes a reasonable likelihood of
`
`unpatentability for any of the challenged claims of the ’172 Patent, each Ground
`
`should be denied.
`
`For the reasons described in detail below and supported by the accompanying
`
`exhibits, the Petition should be denied a filing date and denied institution. 2
`
`II. THE PETITION IS BARRED BY PETITIONER’S PRIOR ACTION.
`
`Under Section 42.105(a), Petitioner must certify that it is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review. Pursuant to the statute, a petition
`
`cannot be instituted where a petitioner previously filed a civil action in which it
`
`asserted invalidity of the patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1). Here, Petitioner fails to
`
`address the 2016 civil action it brought challenging the validity of the ’172 Patent.
`
`(Petition, Paper 2 (“Pet.”) at 5.)
`
`
`2 Patent Owner does not concede the legitimacy of any arguments in the Petition
`
`that are not specifically addressed herein. Patent Owner expressly reserves the right
`
`to fully address the Petition’s arguments in its Patent Owner Response should the
`
`Board institute proceedings.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Specifically, on March 30, 2016, more than two years prior to filing this
`
`Petition, Petitioner filed a civil action in the Central District of California asserting
`
`antitrust violations based upon Select Comfort Corporation’s (“Select Comfort”)
`
`alleged fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the
`
`invalidity of the ’172 Patent. Am. Nat’l Mfg. v. Select Comfort Corp., et al., Case
`
`No. 16-cv-00582-GHK-JC (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016). Such alleged “[f]raud in
`
`obtaining a United States patent is a classical ground of invalidity or unenforceability
`
`of the patent.” C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998); see also Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 916 F.3d 429, 439 (5th Cir.
`
`2019) (concluding that analysis of the fraud element of a Walker Process claim
`
`requires a court to consider the validity of a patent).
`
`Petitioner ANM amended its complaint on November 14, 2016, but
`
`maintained these allegations. Ex. 2002. Indeed, Petitioner specifically alleged that
`
`Select Comfort committed fraud on the PTO because U.S. Patent No. (“USPN”)
`
`5,652,484 to Shafer et al. invalidated the proposed claims of the ’172 Patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Id. at ¶ 54 (“[T]he Undisclosed Shafer Patent was prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e).”); see also id. ¶¶ 57, 60. Not only was invalidity alleged in the
`
`2016 civil action, but Petitioner’s allegations in the 2016 civil action are similar to
`
`the invalidity allegations in the Petition. In Ground 1 of the Petition, claims are
`
`challenged as anticipated by WO 96/13947 to Shafer et al., which is in the same
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`family as the Shafer patent alleged in the 2016 civil action. Compare Pet. at 13-27
`
`with Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 54, 57, 60; compare also Ex. 1007 with Ex. 2023.
`
`Ultimately, the 2016 civil action was dismissed.3 However, if the court had
`
`made the necessary invalidity findings to grant judgment for Petitioner, Select
`
`Comfort, and any subsequent ’172 Patent Owner, would have been collaterally
`
`estopped from asserting that the ’172 Patent claims were valid. See Parklane Hosiery
`
`Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5 (1979) (explaining collateral estoppel
`
`applies where issue in question was necessary to outcome of first action); cf also
`
`Xitronix, 916 F.3d at 439 (finding if a court determined that patent owner defrauded
`
`PTO, patent owner would be collaterally estopped from enforcing patent, rendering
`
`the patent invalid).4 Because the 2016 civil action included allegations of invalidity
`
`that would have eliminated Select Comfort’s (and ultimately Sleep Number’s)
`
`ability to assert validity of the ’172 Patent had Petitioner prevailed, Petitioner’s 2016
`
`
`3 Whether dismissed with or without prejudice, the Rule 315(a)(1) bar is triggered.
`
`Ruiz Food Prods., Inc., v. Macropoint LLC, IPR2017-02018, Paper 22 (PTAB Feb.
`
`14, 2019) (even dismissal without prejudice triggers bar) (citing Click-to-Call
`
`Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`4 The Federal Circuit accepted jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. Xitronix
`
`Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 757 F. App’x 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`action “challeng[ed] the validity of a claim” of the ’172 Patent in accordance with
`
`Section 315(a). Accordingly, the Petition should be denied as barred pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(a)(1).
`
`III. PATENT OWNERSHIP AND SERVICE DEFECTS.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner and Real Party in Interest.
`
`Sleep Number Corporation owns all rights, title, and interest in the ’172 Patent
`
`as evidenced by the November 1, 2017, assignment transferring the same from Select
`
`Comfort Corporation to Sleep Number Corporation recorded at Reel: 044784,
`
`Frame: 0925, on November 16, 2017. Ex. 2010. Sleep Number Corporation is the
`
`real party in interest.
`
`B.
`
`Because the Petition is Incomplete, Its Filing Date Should Be
`Rescinded.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a), a petition is not complete and “will not be
`
`accorded a filing date” until the requirements of §§ 42.104, 42.105(a), and 42.15(a)
`
`have been met. Compliance with each provision is required. See, e.g., Cultec, Inc.
`
`v. Stormtech LLC, IPR2017-00526, 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 Tech., 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).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`
`Under § 42.105(a), there are two service requirements: “[t]he petition and
`
`supporting evidence must be served [1] on the patent owner [and 2] at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the subject patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)
`
`(emphasis added). A petitioner who fails 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 a firm previously
`
`listed as
`
`the
`
`correspondence address of record, but which had been replaced by a new firm and
`
`address months prior. Id. Accordingly, the PTAB held the petitioner’s service “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 PTO’s PAIR portal,
`
`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 to
`
`allow the Micron petition to proceed, it should not do so here. In Micron, the
`
`petitioner attempted, even if not in good faith, 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 such effort 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 the petitioner fails to comply with the regulations. See, e.g., Cultec,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`IPR2017-00526, Paper 14 at 14; Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC,
`
`IPR2016-00281, Paper 21 at 3, 10-14 (PTAB May 23, 2016); Plaid, IPR2016-00275,
`
`Paper 15 at 13-15; Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS, IPR2014-01417, Paper
`
`15 at 3-4 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2015).
`
`Petitioner did not serve Patent Owner and did not serve the Petition at the
`
`correspondence address of record. Rather, Petitioner purported to serve Select
`
`Comfort at the address of two law firms – neither of which is the correspondence
`
`address of record. The Petition should therefore be rejected.
`
`1.
`
`The Patent Owner Was Not Served.
`
`Petitioner failed to correctly name and effect service “on the patent owner,”
`
`as required by § 42.105(a), despite being on actual and constructive notice of Sleep
`
`Number’s status as the patent owner. A petition naming the wrong patent owner fails
`
`to provide proper notice to the correct patent owner. In fact, the Board has made
`
`clear that the failure to name the proper patent owner is not merely a clerical error.5
`
`
`5 Any attempt to characterize the incorrectly-identified patent owner as a
`
`“typographical error” must be rejected. First, this argument was 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 that it had
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-00514
`Patent 5,904,172
`
`See, e.g., TD Bank, N.A. v. Global Session Holdings SRL, IPR2014-01350, Paper 11
`
`at 4-7 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2014). Petitioner should have conducted a pre-filing
`
`investigation to identify the correct patent owner. Allowing petitioners to skirt this
`
`requirement would eviscerate statutory requirements that are imposed for a reason—
`
`to protect patent owners and to provide clarity to the parties and the PTO alike.
`
`Allowing a petitioner to forgo these statutory requirements would result in
`
`ineffective notice to patent owners, counsel, the PTO, and the public.
`
`Here, Petitioner incorrectly identifies “Select Comfort Corporation” as the
`
`patent owner. A simple pre-filing investigation would have disclosed that “Sleep
`
`Number Corporation” is the correct patent owner. While Select Comfort was
`
`previously the owner of the ’172 Patent, it assigned ownership to Sleep Number in
`
`2017, and Sleep Number recorded those assignments