`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
`Issued: September 27, 2016
`Application No.: 12/910,706
`Filing Date: October 22, 2010
`
`For: System and Method for Data Management
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 4
`D.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 4
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 5
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)) ................ 5
`V. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The Board Should Not Exercise Its Discretion to Deny
`Institution ............................................................................................... 6
`The ’748 Patent ..................................................................................... 8
`(i)
`Summary of Alleged Invention ................................................... 8
`(ii)
`Prosecution History ..................................................................... 9
`(iii) Effective Filing Date Of Challenged Claims ............................ 10
`Primary Prior Art References .............................................................. 11
`(i)
`Barbosa ...................................................................................... 11
`(ii) Hancock .................................................................................... 11
`(iii) Bandera ..................................................................................... 11
`(iv) Falls ........................................................................................... 12
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’748 PATENT ........ 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`A.
`B.
`
`(B)
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 12
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 12
`(i)
`“GPS integral thereto” .............................................................. 13
`(ii)
`“token” ...................................................................................... 14
`(iii) “questionnaire” .......................................................................... 15
`(iv)
`“loosely networked” .................................................................. 16
`(v)
`“originating computer” / “recipient computer” / “central
`computer” .................................................................................. 17
`VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 17
`A.
`Barbosa Renders Obvious Claims 1, 19-22 ........................................ 18
`(i)
`Independent Claim 19 ............................................................... 18
`(A)
`“A method for managing data comprising the steps
`of:” .................................................................................. 18
`“(a) establishing communications between a
`handheld computing device and an originating
`computer wherein said handheld computing device
`has a GPS integral thereto” ............................................. 18
`“(b) receiving within said handheld computing
`device a transmission of a tokenized questionnaire
`from said originating computer,” ................................... 20
`“said tokenized questionnaire including at least
`one question requesting location identifying
`information,” ................................................................... 22
`“said tokenized questionnaire comprising a
`plurality of device independent tokens;” ........................ 23
`“(c) ending said communications between said
`handheld computing device and said originating
`computer;” ...................................................................... 25
`
`(C)
`
`(D)
`
`(E)
`
`(F)
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(G)
`
`(H)
`
`(I)
`
`(J)
`
`(K)
`
`“(d) after said communications has been ended,
`(d1) executing at least a portion of said plurality of
`tokens comprising said questionnaire on said
`handheld computing device to collect at least one
`response from a first user, and,” ..................................... 26
`(d2) storing within said computing device said at
`least one response from the first user; ............................ 27
`“(d3) using said GPS to automatically obtain said
`location identifying information in response to said
`at least one question that requests location
`identifying information;” ................................................ 27
`“(e) establishing communications between said
`handheld computing device and a recipient
`computer;” ...................................................................... 27
`“(f) transmitting a value representative of each of
`said at least one response stored within said
`handheld computing device to said recipient
`computer; and,” ............................................................... 28
`“(g) after receipt of said transmission of step (f),
`transmitting a notice of said received value
`representative of each of said at least one response
`to a second user.” ............................................................ 28
`(ii) Claim 20 .................................................................................... 30
`(iii)
`Independent Claim 21 ............................................................... 30
`(A)
`“A method for managing data comprising the steps
`of:” .................................................................................. 30
`“(a) within a central computer, accessing at least
`one user data item stored in a recipient computer,
`wherein said at least one data item is obtained via
`the steps of:” ................................................................... 30
`“(1) establishing communications between a
`handheld computing device and an originating
`computer wherein said handheld computing device
`has a GPS integral thereto;” ............................................ 31
`
`(L)
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(D)
`
`(E)
`
`(F)
`
`(G)
`
`(H)
`
`“(2) receiving within said handheld computing
`device a transmission of a tokenized questionnaire,
`including at least one question requesting GPS
`coordinates and at least one additional question,
`said tokenized questionnaire comprising a plurality
`of device independent tokens;” ...................................... 31
`“(3) ending said communications between said
`handheld computing device and said originating
`computer;” ...................................................................... 32
`“(4) after said communications has been ended, (i)
`executing at least a portion of said plurality of
`tokens comprising said questionnaire on said
`handheld computing device,” ......................................... 32
`“(ii) automatically entering the GPS coordinates
`into said questionnaire:” ................................................. 32
`“(iii) presenting said at least one additional
`question to a user; (iv) receiving at least one
`response from the user to each of said presented at
`least one additional question,” ........................................ 33
`“(v) storing at least one value representative of
`said GPS coordinates and said at least one
`response within said handheld computing device;” ....... 33
`“(5) establishing a communications link between
`said handheld computing device and a recipient
`computer;” ...................................................................... 33
`“(6) transmitting said stored at least one value
`representative of said GPS coordinates and said at
`least one response stored within said handheld
`computing device to said recipient computer; and,” ...... 33
`“(7) storing within said recipient computer any of
`said transmitted GPS coordinates and said at least
`one value representative of said at least one
`response, thereby creating said at least one user
`data item stored in said recipient computer; and,” ......... 34
`(M) “(b) forming a visually perceptible report from any
`of said at least one stored user data item.” ..................... 34
`(iv) Claim 22 .................................................................................... 35
`(v)
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 35
`
`(I)
`
`(J)
`
`(K)
`
`(L)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`(D)
`
`(E)
`
`(F)
`
`(G)
`
`(H)
`
`“A method for managing data including the steps
`of:” .................................................................................. 35
`“(a) creating a questionnaire comprising a series of
`questions customized for a location;” ............................. 36
`“(b) said questionnaire including at least one
`question requesting GPS coordinates;” .......................... 36
`“(c) tokenizing said questionnaire, thereby
`producing a plurality of device indifferent tokens
`representing said questionnaire;” ................................... 36
`“(d) transmitting said plurality of tokens to a
`remote computing device;” ............................................. 36
`“(e) when said remote computing device is at said
`location, executing at least a portion of said
`plurality of tokens representing said questionnaire
`at within said remote computing device to collect a
`response from a user;” .................................................... 37
`“(f) automatically entering the GPS coordinates
`into said questionnaire;” ................................................. 37
`“(g) transmitting at least a portion of said response
`from the user to a server in real time via a network;
`and” ................................................................................. 37
`“(h) storing said response at said server.” ...................... 37
`(I)
`Barbosa In View of Bandera Renders Obvious Claims 1, 19-22 ....... 38
`(i) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Barbosa With Bandera .............................................................. 38
`(ii) Claims 1, 19-22 ......................................................................... 39
`Barbosa In View of Falls Renders Obvious Claim 7 .......................... 40
`(i) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Barbosa With Falls .................................................................... 40
`Independent Claim 7 ................................................................. 42
`(A)
`“A method for collecting survey data from a user
`and making responses available via the Internet,
`comprising:” ................................................................... 42
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`(ii)
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`(D)
`
`(E)
`
`“(a) designing a questionnaire including at least
`one question said questionnaire customized for a
`particular location having branching logic on a
`first computer platform wherein at least one of said
`at least one questions requests location identifying
`information;” ................................................................... 42
`“(b) automatically transferring said designed
`questionnaire to at least one loosely networked
`computer having a GPS integral thereto;” ...................... 43
`“(c) when said loosely networked computer is at
`said particular location, executing said transferred
`questionnaire on said loosely networked computer,
`thereby collecting responses from the user;”.................. 45
`“(d) while said transferred questionnaire is
`executing, using said GPS to automatically provide
`said location identifying information as a response
`to said executing questionnaire;” .................................... 45
`“(e) automatically transferring via the loose
`network any responses so collected in real time to
`a central computer; and,” ................................................ 45
`“(f) making available via the Internet any
`responses transferred to said central computer in
`step (e).” .......................................................................... 45
`D. Hancock Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 5, 19-22 ............................... 45
`(i)
`Independent Claim 19 ............................................................... 45
`(A)
`“A method …” ................................................................ 45
`(B)
`“(a) establishing communications …” ............................ 46
`(C)
`“(b) receiving within said handheld computing
`device …” ....................................................................... 47
`“said tokenized questionnaire including at least
`one question requesting location identifying
`information,” ................................................................... 51
`“said tokenized questionnaire comprising a
`plurality of device independent tokens;” ........................ 51
`“(c) ending said communications …” ............................ 52
`“(d) after said communications has been ended,
`(d1) executing …” .......................................................... 54
`(d2) storing within said computing device …” .............. 54
`
`(F)
`
`(G)
`
`(D)
`
`(E)
`
`(F)
`(G)
`
`(H)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(E)
`(F)
`
`(I)
`(J)
`(K)
`(L)
`
`“(d3) using said GPS …” ................................................ 55
`“(e) establishing communications …” ............................ 55
`“(f) transmitting a value …” ........................................... 56
`“(g) after receipt of said transmission of step (f),
`transmitting a notice of said received value …” ............ 56
`(ii) Claim 20 .................................................................................... 57
`(iii)
`Independent Claim 21 ............................................................... 57
`(A)
`“A method …” ................................................................ 57
`(B)
`“(a) within a central computer …” ................................. 57
`(C)
`“(1) establishing communications …” ........................... 58
`(D)
`“(2) receiving within said handheld computing
`device …” ....................................................................... 58
`“(3) ending said communications …” ............................ 59
`“(4) after said communications has been ended, (i)
`executing …” .................................................................. 60
`“(ii) automatically entering …” ...................................... 60
`(G)
`“(iii) presenting … (iv) receiving …” ............................ 61
`(H)
`“(v) storing at least one value …” .................................. 61
`(I)
`“(5) establishing a communications link …” ................. 62
`(J)
`“(6) transmitting said stored at least one value …” ........ 62
`(K)
`“(7) storing within said recipient computer …” ............. 63
`(L)
`(M) “(b) forming a visually perceptible report …” ............... 63
`(iv) Claim 22 .................................................................................... 64
`(v)
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 65
`(A)
`“A method …” ................................................................ 65
`(B)
`“(a) creating a questionnaire …” .................................... 65
`(C)
`“(b) said questionnaire …;” ............................................ 66
`(D)
`“(c) tokenizing …;” ........................................................ 66
`(E)
`“(d) transmitting …;” ...................................................... 66
`(F)
`“(e) when said remote computing device is at said
`location, executing …;” .................................................. 66
`“(f) automatically entering …;” ...................................... 67
`(G)
`“(g) transmitting at least a portion …” ........................... 67
`(H)
`“(h) storing said response at said server.” ...................... 67
`(I)
`(vi) Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 67
`(vii) Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 68
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`(ii)
`
`Hancock In View of Bandera Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 5,
`19-22 .................................................................................................... 68
`(i) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Hancock With Bandera ............................................................. 68
`(ii) Claims 1, 2, 5, 19-22 ................................................................. 70
`Hancock In View of Falls Renders Obvious Claim 7 ......................... 71
`(i) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Hancock With Falls ................................................................... 71
`Independent Claim 7 ................................................................. 72
`(A)
`“A method for collecting survey data …” ...................... 72
`(B)
`“(a) designing a questionnaire …” ................................. 73
`(C)
`“(b) automatically transferring said designed
`questionnaire …” ............................................................ 73
`“(c) when said loosely networked computer is at
`said particular location, executing …” ........................... 74
`“(d) while said transferred questionnaire is
`executing …” .................................................................. 74
`“(e) automatically transferring … any responses
`…” ................................................................................... 74
`“(f) making available …” ............................................... 74
`(G)
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`
`
`(D)
`
`(E)
`
`(F)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`Case IPR2018-00070 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2018) ................................................... 6
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`No. IPR2016-01357 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ...................................................... 6
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 52
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 12
`PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu,
`891 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 38, 70
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 13
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Pi-Net Int’l, Inc.,
`No. IPR2014-00414 (P.T.A.B. August 18, 2014) .............................................. 10
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 ...................................................................................................................... 9
`§ 102(a) ............................................................................................................... 11
`§ 102(b) ................................................................................................... 11, 12, 24
`§ 102(e) ......................................................................................................... 11, 24
`§ 103 ................................................................................................................ 9, 10
`§ 103(a) ................................................................................................................. 5
`§ 112 .................................................................................................................... 10
`§ 314(a) ................................................................................................................. 6
`§ 325(d) ................................................................................................................. 6
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) ................................................... 11, 12, 24
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R.
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.8 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.15(a) .............................................................................................................. 4
`§ 42.15(a) .............................................................................................................. 4
`§ 42.100(b) .......................................................................................................... 12
`§ 42.100(b) .......................................................................................................... 12
`§ 42.104(b) ............................................................................................................ 5
`§ 42.104(b) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`Exhibit List
`
`Ex. No. Description
`
`
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 to Payne (“the ’748 patent”)
`
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586 to Barbosa et al. (“Barbosa”)
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,202,023 to Hancock et al. (“Hancock”)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,332,127 to Bandera et al. (“Bandera”)
`
`1005 Declaration of Kendyl Roman
`
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl Roman
`
`1007 Excerpted portions of the ’748 patent file history
`
`1008 Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions Cover Document against Uber
`Technologies, Inc. and Choice Hotels International, Inc.
`1009 Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions Chart against Uber
`Technologies, Inc.
`1010 Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions Chart against Choice Hotels
`International, Inc.
`1011 U.S. Patent 7,822,816 (“the ’816 patent”)
`
`1012 The ’816 patent Institution Decision
`
`1013 The ’816 patent Claim Construction Order
`
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 6,381,535 to Durocher (“Durocher”)
`
`1015
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 00/49530 to
`Parasnis (“Parasnis”)
`1016 Excerpted portions of the ’816 ex parte reexamination
`
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,991,771 to Falls et al. (“Falls”)
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,454,748
`
`The instant petition respectfully requests institution of inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 19-22 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 to
`
`Payne (“’748 patent,” Ex. 1001). USPTO records indicate that the ’748 patent is
`
`assigned to Fall Line Patents, LLC (“P.O.”), which is asserting the ’748 patent in
`
`concurrent litigations.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest to this petition are Starbucks Corporation
`
`(“Starbucks”), American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and AMC Entertainment Holdings,
`
`Inc. (“AMC”), Boston Market Corporation (“Boston Market”), Mobo Systems,
`
`Inc., d/b/a OLO Online Ordering (“Olo”), McDonald’s Corporation and
`
`McDonald’s USA (“McDonald’s”), Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and Panda
`
`Express Inc. (“Panda”), and Papa John’s International, Inc., Star Papa LP, and
`
`Papa John’s USA, Inc. (“Papa John’s”) (collectively, “Petitioners”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’748 patent is asserted in the following pending district court cases:
`
`Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Zoe’s Kitchen, Inc. et al., No. 6:18-cv-407-RWS, Fall
`
`Line Patents, LLC v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 6:18-cv-408-
`
`RWS, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Boston Market Corporation, No. 6:18-cv-409-
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`RWS, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 6:18-cv-411-RWS,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,454,748
`
`Fall Line Patents, LLC v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al., No. 6:18-cv-412-RWS,
`
`Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. et al., No. 6:18-cv-413-
`
`RWS, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Papa John’s International, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-415-
`
`RWS.
`
`The ’748 patent was asserted in the following district court cases that are no
`
`longer pending: Fall Line Patents, LLC v. American Airlines Group Inc. et al., No.
`
`6:17-cv-202-RWS Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. et al., No.
`
`6:17-cv-203-RWS, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc. et al., No.
`
`6:17-cv-204-RWS, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Choice Hotels International Inc., No.
`
`6:17-cv-407-RWS, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 6:17-
`
`cv-408-RWS.
`
`The ’748 patent was subject to an inter partes review petition (IPR2018-
`
`00535) (“Uber IPR”) filed on January 25, 2018, by Uber Technologies, Inc. and
`
`Choice Hotels International, Inc. (“Uber Petition”). The Uber Petition challenged
`
`claims 1, 9, 11, 13, and 15-22. In contrast, the instant petition challenges claim 7,
`
`and does not challenge claims 9, 11, 13, or 15-18. The P.O. Preliminary Response
`
`was filed on May 7, 2018. On July 11, 2018, before the deadline for institution
`
`decision, the parties requested authorization to file a joint motion to terminate. On
`
`July 25, 2018, the Uber IPR was terminated. The next month, on August 15, 2018,
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`P.O. filed another wave of litigation against each of the Petitioners. The present
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,454,748
`
`petition includes some arguments set forth in the Uber Petition.
`
`Further, the ’748 patent is the subject of a pending inter partes review
`
`petition (IPR2018-00043) (“Unified IPR”) filed on October 6, 2017, by Unified
`
`Patents Inc. (“Unified Petition”). The issues presented by this petition are
`
`substantially different than those raised by the Unified Petition. In particular, the
`
`Unified Petition challenged only claims 16-19 and 21-22, whereas this petition
`
`challenges claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 19-22. Furthermore, this petition relies on entirely
`
`different prior art with no overlap to the prior art at issue in the Unified Petition.
`
`The Unified IPR was instituted on April 5, 2018. Oral argument was held on
`
`December 14, 2018.
`
`The ’748 patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/643,516, filed
`
`August 19, 2003, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,822,816 (“the ’816 patent”).
`
`Claims 1-14 of the ’816 patent (all claims) were the subject of an ex parte
`
`reexamination proceeding (U.S. Serial No. 90/012,829), which resulted in a
`
`reexamination certificate cancelling those claims. Ex. 1011, 18. Additionally,
`
`claims 1-14 of the ’816 patent were the subject of an inter partes review petition
`
`(IPR2014-00140), which the Board instituted (“‘816 Institution Decision”). Ex.
`
`1012. Thereafter, the Board terminated IPR2014-00140 upon cancellation of the
`
`challenged claims in the aforementioned ex parte reexamination.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,454,748
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018)
`lisa.nguyen@lw.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650.470.4848
`Fax: 650.463.2600
`Back-Up Counsel
`Robert H. Reckers (Reg. No. 54,633)
`rreckers@shb.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
`Houston, Texas 77002-2926
`Telephone: 713.227.8008
`Fax: 713.227.9508
`
`
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Tara D. Elliott (Reg. No. 52,859)
`tara.elliott@lw.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2329
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`Back-Up Counsel
`Lowell D. Mead
`(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`lmead@cooley.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Cooley LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: 650.843.5734
`Fax: 650.849.7400
`Back-Up Counsel
`Ricardo Bonilla (Reg. No. 65,190)
`rbonilla@fr.com;
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: 214.747.5070
`Fax: 877.769.7945
`
`Petitioners consent to service by email.
`
`D.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,454,748
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’748 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and petitioners are not barred from requesting this proceeding.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B))
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 19-22 are obvious under § 103(a) over U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,961,586 to Barbosa et al. (“Barbosa”) (Ex. 1002) alone in view of the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1 and 19-22 are obvious under § 103(a) over Barbosa
`
`(Ex. 1002) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,332,127 to Bandera et al. (“Bandera”) (Ex.
`
`1004).
`
`Ground 3: Claim 7 is obvious under § 103(a) over Barbosa (Ex. 1002) in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 5,991,771 to Falls et al. (“Falls”) (Ex. 1017).
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22 are obvious under § 103(a) over U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,202,023 to Hancock et al. (“Hancock”) (Ex. 1003) alone in view of
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`
`Hancock (Ex. 1003) in view of Bandera (Ex. 1004).
`
`Ground 6: Claim 7 is obvious under § 103(a) over Hancock (Ex. 1003) in
`
`view of Falls (Ex. 1017).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,454,748
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW
`A. The Board Should Not Exercise Its Discretion to Deny Institution
`The Board should not exercise its discretion to deny the instant petition
`
`under either 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) or 325(d) based on the factors identified in
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, No. IPR2016-01357,
`
`paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential). Under those factors, “[o]nce
`
`resolution of factor 1 [whether petitioners are the same] indicates that a petitioner
`
`has not previously filed a petition against the same patent, typically factors 2-5
`
`bear little relevance unless the record evidences extenuating circumstances, such as
`
`a showing that there was a previous petitioner who challenged the same patent and
`
`the previous petitioner and the current petitioner planned the staggered petitions.”
`
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Case IPR2018-00070, paper
`
`14, 14 (P.T.A.B. May 10, 2018).
`
`As to the Uber IPR, the instant petition is filed by different petitioners, none
`
`of whom is a real party-in-interest to the Uber Petition. Importantly, Petitioners
`
`did not and could not plan staggered petitions with the prior petitioners. The prior
`
`petitioners settled with P.O. and requested authorization to file a motion to
`
`terminate on July 11, 2018. P.O. did not file suit against Petitioners until August
`
`2018. The instant petition also addresses different claims than the Uber Petition.
`
`In particular, Petitioners challenge independent claim 7, asserted in litigation
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`against Petitioners but not challenged in the Uber Petition. There is also no delay;
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,454,748
`
`Petitioners filed the instant petition one week after P.O. served its infringement
`
`contentions, disclosing for the first time which claims it asserts against Petitioners.
`
`Further, Petitioners have not used the Uber IPR P.O. Preliminary Response as a
`
`roadmap, and have not obtained any input from the petitioners in the Uber IPR.
`
`As to the Unified IPR, likewise, none of Petitioners here is a real party-in-
`
`interest to the Unified Petition. Further, the instant petition challenges additional
`
`claims not addressed by the Unified Petition, and relies on entirely different prior
`
`art. Petitioners have not used the Unified IPR as a roadmap, and have not obtained
`
`any input from its petitioners.
`
`Finally, the prior art here was not distinguished during the ’748 patent
`
`prosecution. Barbosa, Hancock, and Bandera were not cited during prosecution.
`
`Falls, which is cited herein only for the “loosely networked” limitation of claim 7,
`
`was found by t