`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00033
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S RANKING AND
`EXPLANATION OF PARALLEL PETITIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`IPR2020-00033
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`Petitioner filed two separate petitions in IPR2020-00033 and IPR2020-00034
`
`(collectively, “the Petitions”) on the same day challenging the same two claims of
`
`the same patent - U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (“the ‘580 Patent”). Petitioner’s
`
`Ranking and Explanation of Parallel Petitions (“Petitioner’s Ranking/Explanation”)
`
`fails to justify the need for multiple burdensome proceedings. These two petitions
`
`“filed against the same patent at or about the same time … raise fairness, timing, and
`
`efficiency concerns.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice
`
`Guide (November 2019) (“the Consolidated Guide”) at 59 (citing 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(b)). “[M]ultiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority
`
`of cases,” as is true in the present proceedings. Id. Accordingly, the Board should
`
`not institute on more than one petition (if it institutes at all).
`
`
`
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT INSTITUTE ON BOTH PETITIONS
`
`The present proceeding does not represent one of those rare situations where
`
`“more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, when the patent
`
`owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute
`
`about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. In
`
`the related district court litigation, Patent Owner has asserted only two claims (claims
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`2 and 59) of the ‘580 Patent. Pet, at 3. Petitioner’s Ranking/Explanation fails to
`
`IPR2020-00033
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`mention this fact, and asks the Board to unduly burden itself and the parties by
`
`instituting the same number of petitions as there are claims being asserted in the
`
`district court litigation. This is far from an efficient use of Board resources.
`
`Petitioner’s concern about a dispute over non-analogous art in one petition is
`
`not sufficient justification for parallel petitions. While, indeed, Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that the “difference in the exemplary devices receiving the
`
`transmissions (pagers vs. computers, smart appliances, and other stations) is
`
`material” and thus is justified being concerned about its characterization as non-
`
`analogous art, that does not require separate petitions. Valid disputes over non-
`
`analogous art are but one of many types of disputes that may arise during inter partes
`
`review. There is nothing special about a dispute over non-analogous art that would
`
`justify parallel petitions, even if the Petitioner fears it may lose the dispute.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner’s argument that parallel petitions are justified because
`
`Patent Owner may try to swear behind U.S. Patent No. 6,075,814 to Yamano et al.
`
`(“Yamano”) is moot, because Patent Owner stipulates that Yamano is prior art as to
`
`the ‘580 Patent.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the petitions being the first petitions filed by Petitioner
`
`with respect to the ‘580 patent as an alleged justification for institution of parallel
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`petitions. See Petitioner’s Ranking/Explanation, at 4. However, petitions for IPR
`
`IPR2020-00033
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`are routinely brought by Petitioners who have not previously challenged the patent
`
`at issue. If being a first-time challenger was a determining factor, parallel petitions
`
`would be the norm instead of the exception.
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board decline to institute inter
`
`partes review on at least one of the petitions for the reasons stated above.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: February 13, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jason Shapiro/
`By:
`Jason Shapiro (Reg. No. 35,354)
`
` Attorney for Patent Owner
` Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00033
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), a copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S RANKING
`
`AND EXPLANATION OF PARALLEL PETITIONS was served via email on
`
`February 13, 2020, to lead and backup counsel of record for Petitioner as follows:
`
`Mark D. Rowland
`Reg. No. 32,077
`mark.rowland@ropesgray.com
`
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Reg. No. 38,916
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`Josef Schenker
`Josef.Schenker@ropesgray.com
`
`Carolyn Redding
`Carolyn.Redding@ropesgray.com
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP, IPRM – Floor 43
`Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street
`Boston, MA 02199
`
`Ropes-Rembrandt-IPR-Service@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`Dated: February 13, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`/Mark J. DeBoy/
`Mark J. DeBoy (Reg. No. 66,983)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP
`
`4
`
`