`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, AND WHATSAPP INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00924
`Patent 8,209,634
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER BLACKBERRY LIMITED’S
`PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00924
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0047IP1
`
`EXHIBITS
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D.
`
`Corrected Final Ruling on Claim Construction/Markman
`Hearing, BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., Case Nos. CV 18-
`1844-GW & 18-2693-GW (C.D. Cal. April 5, 2019)
`(“Markman Order”)
`Defendant’s Notice and Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes
`Review, BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Case Nos.
`2:18-cv-01844-GW & 2:18-cv-02693-GW (C.D. Cal. April 16,
`2019)
`
`Minutes of Status Conference, Initial Thoughts re Joint Report,
`BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-
`01844-GW & 2:18-cv-02693-GW (C.D. Cal. April 22, 2019)
`
`Notice Withdrawing Pre-Institution Motion to Stay In View of
`Court’s Guidance, BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al.,
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844-GW & 2:18-cv-02693-GW (C.D.
`Cal. April 26, 2019)
`
`Minutes of Order In Chambers, Trial Schedule, BlackBerry
`Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844-GW
`& 2:18-cv-02693-GW (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2019)
`
`BlackBerry Limited’s Final Election of Asserted Claims,
`BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-
`01844-GW & 2:18-cv-02693-GW (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2019)
`
`Defendant’s Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, BlackBerry
`Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844-GW
`& 2:18-cv-02693-GW (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2019)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`ii
`
`
`
`EX2001
`
`
`
`EX2002
`
`EX2003
`
`EX2004
`
`
`
`
`EX2005
`
`
`EX2006
`
`
`EX2007
`
`
`EX2008
`
`
`EX2009
`
`EX2010
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2011
`
`
`EX2012
`
`Case IPR2019-00924
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0047IP1
`Order Modifying Scheduling Order BlackBerry Limited v.
`Facebook, Inc. et al., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844-GW & 2:18-cv-
`02693-GW (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2019)
`
`Order Denying Renewed Motion for Stay, The California
`Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:16-
`cv-03714-GW (C.D. Cal. October 5, 2017)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 325(d): Nothing in Facebook’s Reply disputes the critical facts on page 28
`
`Case IPR2019-00924
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0047IP1
`
`of the POPR demonstrating the meaningful overlap between the Examiner’s
`
`“Canfield Considered” grounds (which were withdrawn) and the Petition’s
`
`“Canfield” grounds. Facebook’s Reply merely repeats the same §325(d)
`
`arguments previously raised in the Petition. The Reply again attempts to rely on
`
`one purported difference between “Canfield” and “Considered Canfield,” but this
`
`line of argument overlooks that both Canfield and Considered Canfield are directed
`
`to numbers of instant messaging “sessions” and both include scenarios in which a
`
`single correspondent would “start and stop” a number of sessions. As a result,
`
`both Canfield and Considered Canfield suffer from the same shortcoming
`
`identified during original prosecution that led the Examiner to withdraw such
`
`grounds for rejection. See POPR, 28; EX1013, 814; 678 (“a single correspondent
`
`can initiate an unlimited number of new IM sessions”). Nothing in the Reply
`
`identified new teachings of Canfield that address this pertinent reasoning in the
`
`prosecution history, and the fact that Canfield and Considered Canfield may
`
`describe different numbers of “sessions” is immaterial to this shared deficiency.
`
`The Petition relies on Canfield’s number of sessions—just like the Examiner relied
`
`on Considered Canfield’s number of sessions—and Petitioner has failed in its
`
`burden to demonstrate why Canfield is not cumulative. See POPR, 28.
`
`§ 314(a): Likewise, the Reply never disputes the critical facts explained on
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00924
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0047IP1
`pages 21-22 of the POPR nor the consistencies with the E-One case. By waiting
`
`nearly a year to file its Petition, Facebook has acted against the interests of
`
`efficiency. Congress intended the PTAB to implement IPR proceedings to
`
`“ultimately reduce litigation costs” and “create[] an inexpensive substitute for
`
`district court litigation”—not for insuring a defendant’s second chance at invalidity
`
`positions after the costly litigation ends. See 157 Cong. Rec. S5319 (Sept. 6, 2011)
`
`(Sen. Kyl). The PTAB is not Facebook’s insurance policy.
`
`The Reply alleged that Facebook “intends” to renew its request for a stay, but
`
`noticeably absent is the proposed date for this alleged motion. Reply, 3. The Reply
`
`also ignored that the institution decisions for all IPRs at issue in the concurrent
`
`litigation are not likely to be received until November 2019 (e.g., refer to IPR2019-
`
`00923)—only five months before the trial date. Facebook never cites to a single
`
`C.D. Cal. decision granting a stay based upon an IPR instituted only five months
`
`before the trial date. Facebook’s “intention” to seek a stay is nothing more than an
`
`invitation for the Board to speculate about a change to the district court trial date.
`
`See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Customplay, LLC, IPR2018-001498, Paper 13, 10 (PTAB
`
`March 14, 2019) (“We decline to speculate about whether the district court is likely
`
`to postpone the current trial date…”). Critically, Facebook never addressed the fact
`
`that Judge Wu warned Facebook that the court may “deny the stay even if an IPR
`
`has been granted ... if a party has dallied in filing the IPR request.” POPR, 21 (citing
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00924
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0047IP1
`EX2004, 2). That Facebook “dallied” is hardly in question. POPR, 20-21. Indeed,
`
`by the time of any institution decision here, fact discovery will have been completed,
`
`and the parties will be exchanging expert reports. See EX2011, 1-2. The same
`
`district court previously denied a renewed motion to stay in view of instituted IPRs
`
`based on similar facts, finding that “significant litigation activity” had already
`
`occurred. See EX2012, 2-3.
`
`Facebook attempts to downplay its delay by suggesting that the twelve
`
`originally asserted claims were somehow too numerous to challenge before being
`
`narrowed further. Reply, 3. But an IPR challenge against twelve claims is not
`
`burdensome, and it is telling that the Petition ultimately challenged the twelve claims
`
`because Facebook alleged they were “substantially similar.” See Pet., 8. Facebook’s
`
`credibility here is lacking. Moreover, Facebook’s arguments about “differing” claim
`
`sets and the 3Shape case are misplaced. Reply, 3. Facebook’s reliance on the
`
`3Shape decision conveniently ignores that the panel gave weight to “the lack of
`
`preclusive effect of any ITC determination of invalidity,” which is certainly not
`
`applicable here. 3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., IPR2019-00160, Paper 9, 39 (PTAB
`
`June 11, 2019). Also, any claim asserted in the district court is part of the claim set
`
`challenged in the Petition, so any PTAB trial will result in a final written decision
`
`that “second guesses” the district court’s final judgment months after the jury trial.
`
`Facebook’s delayed timing maximized the unfairness and inefficiencies here.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00924
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0047IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Michael T. Hawkins/
`Michael T. Hawkins
`Reg. No. 57,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 28, 2019
`
`
`Customer Number 26191
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2569
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00924
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0047IP1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies that
`
`on August 28, 2019, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner BlackBerry
`
`Limited’s Preliminary Sur-Reply and supporting exhibits were provided via
`
`electronic service, to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence address of record
`
`as follows:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Andrew C. Mace
`Mark R. Weinstein
`Yuan Liang
`Cooley LLP
`Attn: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Email: hkeefe@cooley.com
`Email: amace@cooley.com
`Email: mweinstein@cooley.com
`Email: yliang@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jessica K. Detko/
`
`Jessica K. Detko
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 337-2516
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
