`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT MANAGEMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`PATENT 8,799,468
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction
`I.
`Institution Would Be An Inefficient Use of the Board’s Resources
`II.
`III. The Board Should Not Relitigate Claim Construction
`IV. Conclusion
`
`
`1
`2
`5
`6
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`Table of Exhibits
`
`Exhibits to Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 8,799,468 (“’468 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,465,925
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,799,468
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,122,128
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,465,925
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Curriculum Vitae of Anthony Wechselberger
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0049980 to Hoang
`(“Hoang ’980”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,267 to Hoang (“Hoang ’267”)
`U.S. Publication No. 2003/0208561 to Hoang
`(“Hoang ’561”)
`Michael Adams, OpenCableTM Architecture (2000)
`(“OpenCable”)
`Complaint, Multimedia Content Management LLC v.
`DISH Network Corporation, Civil Action No.: 6:18-
`cv-00207-ADA
`Canadian Patent 2,321,462 to Cameron et al.
`(“Cameron”)
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0162109 to Shteyn
`(“Shteyn”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,974,503 to Venkatesh, et al.
`(“Venkatesh”)
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Multimedia Content
`Management LLC, IPR2017-01934, Paper 9, Patent
`Owner Preliminary Response (PTAB Dec. 14, 2017)
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (15th Edition 1999)
`(excerpts)
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Multimedia Content
`Management LLC, IPR2017-01934, Paper 10
`(Institution Decision) (PTAB Mar. 5, 2018)
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3rd Edition
`1997)
`Certification of the Library of Congress for Open
`Cable Architecture by Michael Adams, executed
`February 27, 2019
`
`
`
`
`EX1001
`EX1002
`EX1003
`EX1004
`EX1005
`EX1006
`EX1007
`EX1008
`
`EX1009
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`EX1012
`
`EX1013
`
`EX1014
`
`EX1015
`
`EX1016
`
`EX1017
`
`EX1018
`
`EX1019
`
`EX1020
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`EX1021
`
`EX1022
`
`EX1023
`EX1024
`EX1025
`
`EX1026
`
`EX1027
`
`EX1028
`EX1029
`EX1030
`
`
`
`EX2001
`EX2002
`
`EX2003
`
`EX2004
`
`EX2005
`
`EX2006
`
`Declaration of Curt Williams Concerning the
`“OpenCable Architecture” Reference by Michael
`Adams, executed March 15, 2019
`U.S. Publication No. 2003/0172376 to Coffin III
`(“Coffin”)
`Deposition of Joel Williams dated April 12, 2019
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (DI 51)
`Defendant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (DI
`48)
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (DI
`53)
`Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`(DI 52)
`Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Brief (DI 59)
`Defendant’s Reply Claim Construction Brief (DI 58)
`Declaration of Anthony J. Wechselberger In Support
`of Defendant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`Exhibits to POPR
`Declaration of Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-5, 9,
`11-13, 19, 23-27, and 32-34 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,799,468, Unified Patents Inc. v. Catonian IP
`Management LLC, Case IPR2017-01934
`Markman Construction Order for Multimedia
`Content Management LLC v. Dish Network
`Corporation, Case No. 6:18-cv-00207-ADA (W.D.
`Tex. June 17, 2019)
`“Information technology – Generic coding of
`moving pictures and associated audio information:
`Systems,” International Standard, ISO/EIC 13818-1,
`Second edition, 2000-12-01
`“Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); DVB
`interaction channel for Cable TV distribution
`systems (CATV),” ETSI Standard, ETSI ES 200
`800, V1.3.1 (2001-10)
`Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`for Multimedia Content Management LLC v. Dish
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`EX2007
`
`EX2008
`
`EX2009
`
`EX2010
`
`EX2011
`
`EX2012
`
`Network Corporation, Case No. 6:18-cv-00207-
`ADA (W.D. Tex. April 5, 2019)
`Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent Numbers 8,799,468 and
`9,465,925 for Multimedia Content Management LLC
`v. Dish Network Corporation, Case No. 6:18-cv-
`00207-ADA (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019)
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review,
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Technologies,
`Inc., Case IPR2018-00752, U.S. Patent No.
`6,183,841, September 12, 2018
`Plaintiff Multimedia Content Management LLC and
`Defendant Dish Network L.L.C.’s Scheduling Order
`for Multimedia Content Management LLC v. Dish
`Network Corporation, Case No. 6:18-cv-00207-
`ADA (W.D. Tex. June 5, 2019)
`Transcript of Markman Hearing Before the
`Honorable Alan D. Albright for Multimedia Content
`Management LLC v. Dish Network Corporation,
`Case No. 6:18-cv-00207-ADA (W.D. Tex. May 7,
`2019)
`Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Before
`the Honorable Alan D. Albright for Multimedia
`Content Management LLC v. Dish Network
`Corporation, Case No. 6:18-cv-00207-ADA (W.D.
`Tex. May 7, 2019)
`Exhibit E to Defendant’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, Declaration of Anthony J.
`Wechselberger, for Multimedia Content
`Management LLC v. Dish Network Corporation,
`Case No. 6:18-cv-00207-ADA (W.D. Tex. March
`15, 2019)
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper No. 7
`
`(“Reply”), only addresses issues that should have been in the Petition, improperly
`
`expanding the Petition beyond the permitted page count. Nevertheless, Petitioner’s
`
`Reply illustrates why instituting the Petition would be an inefficient use of the
`
`Board’s resources. See July 2019 Update to PTAB Trial Practice Guide (“Guide”),
`
`at 23 (recognizing the AIA was designed to “limit unnecessary and
`
`counterproductive litigation costs.”).
`
`Petitioner claims to need further briefing because, after filing the Petition,
`
`“the Board designated its decision in NHK Spring as precedential, and the District
`
`Court in the parallel proceeding construed the claims, denied a motion to stay, and
`
`set a trial date.” Pet. at 1. However, the designation of NHK Spring did not change
`
`the content of that decision. Further, Petitioner was more than aware that the
`
`District Court would be construing the claims three days after it filed the Petition,
`
`and that the trial would likely occur prior to the Board reaching a decision in any
`
`IPR. EX2011 (Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Dismiss, Nov. 28, 2018) at 41
`
`(“At the—either at the end of that day [of the Markman hearing] or the next day
`
`you’ll get a claim construction ruling from me . . . [and] I anticipate [a trial date]
`
`would be within a year or more quickly . . . .”). Indeed, trial is set for July 20,
`
`2020, months before any decision is due in this IPR.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`Petitioner chose to ignore these issues. Instead, Petitioner asks the Board to
`
`relitigate claim construction—upon which its invalidity arguments rely—based on
`
`a Petition with “a high degree of overlap between the evidence and arguments
`
`presented in the Board proceeding and the district court case,”1 and where the
`
`District Court proceedings will finish before the IPR. Petitioner’s willingness to
`
`consume the Board’s resources to relitigate claim construction on an extended
`
`timeline is not an efficient use of the Board’s resources, and the Petition should
`
`therefore be denied.
`
`II.
`
`Institution Would Be An Inefficient Use of the Board’s Resources
`
`Petitioner argues that the Board’s precedential designation of NHK Spring
`
`somehow changes the analysis of whether the Board has discretion to deny
`
`institution of the instant IPR. Reply at 1–3. NHK Spring’s designation as
`
`precedential has no bearing on the Board’s discretionary analysis under the
`
`relevant statute, 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`“Sections 314(a) and 324(a) provide the Director with discretion to deny a
`
`petition.” Guide at 22. The Board listed several factors “to aid the Board’s
`
`assessment of ‘the potential impacts on both the efficiency of the inter partes
`
`review process and the fundamental fairness of the process for all parties’” in
`
`exercising that discretion. Id. (internal citations omitted). These factors are “not
`
`
`1 E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp., IPR019-00162, Paper 16, at 8.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`exclusive and are not intended to represent all situations where it may be
`
`appropriate to deny a petition.” Id.
`
`Additional factors include District Court proceedings. Id. Specific factors
`
`from District Court proceedings include the overlap of evidence and arguments
`
`presented in the Petition and the District Court. E-One, Inc., at 8. Accordingly, a
`
`“balanced assessment of all relevant circumstances,” (Guide at 22), would consider
`
`the factors discussed below, and weighs in favor of denying the Petition.
`
`First, the ʼ468 Patent has been the subject of a previous IPR, in which the
`
`Board denied institution. EX1018. While acknowledging the existence of the
`
`previous IPR, Petitioner has provided no analysis as to how or why this Petition is
`
`materially different from the previous Petition. See generally Pet. at 9–15.
`
`Second, the District Court will evaluate Petitioner’s prior art and determine
`
`validity prior to the Board having a chance to do so. Petitioner argues that “if the
`
`Petition is instituted, Petitioner will not rely on the grounds raised in the Petition.”
`
`Pet. at 2 (emphasis modified). Petitioner attempts to have it both ways—asking the
`
`Board to institute the IPR so that Petitioner can simultaneously attack the Patents
`
`on multiple fronts (wasting the resources of the District Court and the Board),
`
`while acknowledging that if the Board refuses institution, Petitioner may continue
`
`to argue its cited art in the District Court.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`Third, the Board may deny institution where there is a “high degree of
`
`overlap” in the disputed claims between the Petition and the District Court
`
`proceedings. E-Onc, Inc. at 8. In this IPR, all of the asserted claims in the District
`
`Court proceedings are challenged in the IPR.2 Thus, there is complete overlap. The
`
`only claims Petitioner identifies as non-overlapping are dependent claims. As
`
`demonstrated by Petitioner’s own evidence, the huge bulk of time and resources in
`
`both the IPR and District Court have been and will be devoted to determining
`
`validity of the independent claims. E.g., Pet. at 20–54 (35 pages devoted to
`
`independent Claim 1), at 65–66 (single page devoted to dependent Claim 29).
`
`If the Board institutes this IPR, both Patent Owner and Petitioner will be
`
`forced to expend significant time and resources debating the validity of the
`
`independent claims in two separate arenas concurrently. Requiring strict identity of
`
`asserted and challenged claims, as Petitioner argues (Reply at 3), does not
`
`contribute to “a more efficient and streamlined patent system,” Guide at 23, is
`
`
`2 Petitioner notes that there are fifteen challenged claims, while Patent Owner may
`currently only assert six in litigation. Reply at 2–3. Patent Owner notes that the
`number of asserted claims may still be altered by the parties, and Petitioner’s list of
`fifteen challenged claims is almost identical to the list of claims from which Patent
`Owner may choose the to-be-asserted claims (the list does not include dependent
`Claim 28). Thus, were Patent Owner to add claims to the District Court
`proceedings, those claims would necessarily come from the list of challenged
`claims.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`contrary to the Board’s precedent, E-One, Inc.at 8, and requires parallel Board and
`
`District Court validity litigation.
`
`Instituting the instant IPR would waste the Board’s resources at least
`
`because the parallel District Court proceedings will have determined the validity of
`
`the challenged independent claims and a bulk of (if not all) the challenged
`
`dependent claims before the Board reaches a decision. Further, as detailed below,
`
`the Board would be forced to relitigate claim construction for the same claims,
`
`under the same standard, on substantially the same record, as that already
`
`considered and decided by the District Court. For at least these reasons, the Board
`
`should deny institution.
`
`III. The Board Should Not Relitigate Claim Construction
`Petitioner argues that its submitted constructions—which do not match the
`
`District Court’s constructions—do not impact Petitioner’s success on the merits.
`
`Reply at 3–6. Petitioner gives no reason why Petitioner failed to include this
`
`argument in the Petition and it was fully aware that the District Court would
`
`construe the challenged claims3 three days after it filed the Petition. EX2011 at 41.
`
`Petitioner was at no risk of losing its ability to file this IPR (Petitioner had until
`
`July 25, 2019 to file this IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)). Instead of waiting three days to
`
`
`3 For the purposes of claim construction, the District Court considered all of the
`challenged claims except Claim 28.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`accommodate the District Court’s claim construction, Petitioner now asks the
`
`Board to relitigate claim construction based on arguments already made and
`
`adjudicated in the District Court. That is the definition of “wasting resources.”
`
`The Board gives the District Court’s claim construction due weight
`
`particularly where, as here, the record in the district court and the record before the
`
`Board are largely identical for the purposes of claim construction. See EX1024–30
`
`(claim construction briefing); 2012, 1006 (identifying the same expert in support of
`
`Petitioner’s claim construction); see also Guide at 14–15 (noting the relevance of
`
`the similarity of the records). That is the case here.
`
`Petitioner has provided no basis as to why the District Court’s claim
`
`construction is wrong, what part of the IPR record is different from the District
`
`Court record, or given any other reason for the Board to reject the District Court’s
`
`claim construction. Petitioner’s plea should thus fall on deaf ears.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that all challenges in the present IPR be
`
`dismissed.
`
`Date: September 6, 2019
`
`
`
`/s/ Benjamin R. Johnson
`Benjamin R. Johnson
`Reg. No. 64,483
`Jeffrey G. Toler
`Reg. No. 38,342
`TOLER LAW GROUP
`8500 Bluffstone Cove
`Suite A201
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`Austin, Texas 78759
`Telephone: (512) 327-5515
`Facsimile: (512) 327-5575
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01015
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), we certify that an electronic copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, along
`
`with any accompanying exhibits was served on Petitioner’ counsel of record at the
`
`following address:
`
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`hop.guy@bakerbotts.com
`ali.dhanani@bakerbotts.com.
`
`Date: September 6, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Angie K. Blazek
`Angie K. Blazek
`8500 Bluffstone Cove
`Suite A201
`Austin, Texas 78759
`Telephone: 512-327-5515
`Facsimile: 512-327-5575
`
`
`
`i
`
`