`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, AND WHATSAPP INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00925
`Patent 8,209,634
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER BLACKBERRY LIMITED’S
`PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00925
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0048IP1
`
`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 IPR2019-00925
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0048IP1
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 314(a): The Reply never disputes the critical facts explained on pages 21-
`
`Case IPR2019-00925
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0048IP1
`
`23 of the POPR nor the consistencies with the E-One case. Facebook waited
`
`nearly a year to file its IPR Petition, did so using apparent “different” grounds that
`
`Facebook admittedly does not deem worthy of submitting to the jury, and now
`
`demands the Board proceed with a trial that will be grossly inefficient. Reply, 1
`
`(“grounds are different from those”). 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
`
`backup grounds to be resolved only after the costly litigation ends. 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, 2. 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
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00925
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0048IP1
`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, 22 (citing
`
`EX2004, 2). That Facebook “dallied” is hardly in question. POPR, 21-22. 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, 1. 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., 9. Facebook’s
`
`credibility here is lacking. Moreover, Facebook’s arguments about “differing” claim
`
`sets and the 3Shape case are misplaced. Reply, 1. 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00925
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0048IP1
`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.
`
`NHK makes clear that inefficient use of the Board’s resources due to the
`
`advanced stage of parallel litigation is an additional factor in favor of denying
`
`institution. See POPR, 21-23. Facebook’s attempt to limit NHK to “the same prior
`
`art and arguments as the district court” ignores the subsequent E-One case. Id.
`
`Additionally, Facebook’s argument that the “IPR grounds are different” (p. 1) is an
`
`admission that Facebook raised second-rate grounds in the Petition while
`
`presumably preserving its strongest invalidity arguments for the jury trial.
`
`Facebook’s tactic only maximizes the unfairness and inefficiencies here.
`
`Parallel Petition Considerations: “Based on the Board’s prior experience,
`
`one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most
`
`situations,” and two petitions “should be rare.” See Trial Practice Guide, July 2019
`
`Update, 26. Facebook attempts to justify its duplicative filing strategy on the
`
`number of asserted claims (Reply, 3), but this is not such a “rare” case. Twelve
`
`asserted claims is not a “large number,” particularly given Facebook’s
`
`acknowledgement that groups of these claims are “substantially similar.” See Pet.,
`
`9. Nothing in the Reply explains why the overlapping grounds, which address the
`
`same claims with the same primary reference (and some of the same secondary
`
`references), outweigh the inefficiencies/costs of a second proceeding. Pet., 14-15.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00925
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0048IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2019-00925
`Attorney Docket No: 21828-0048IP1
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`