`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,339,493
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. THE ’493 PATENT .................................................................................... 1
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’493 PATENT .......... 1
`B.
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..................................... 2
`C.
`SUMMARY OF UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........... 2
`D.
`LEVEL OF SKILL OF A POSITA ............................................................. 3
`E.
`OPINIONS OF A POSITA ....................................................................... 3
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................... 4
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ...................... 4
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`AND RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................................................... 4
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ..................... 5
`1.
`Claim 1: “effective scanning lines…of a display screen” .......... 5
`2.
`Claims 1, 3-5, and 10: “mixing…signal charges
`accumulated in the N number of vertically arranged pixel
`lines”/“mixed...from the N number of vertically arranged
`pixel lines” ................................................................................ 6
`Claims 4, 6, and 11: “an image-instability detector” ................. 6
`Claims 4, 6, and 11: “an image-instability of the electric
`camera” ..................................................................................... 6
`IV. THE BOARD’S DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) ................... 7
`A. APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PLASTIC FACTORS ................................. 7
`B. APPLE HAS NOT DELAYED IN FILING THIS PETITION .......................... 10
`CASIO IS A PRINTED PUBLICATION AVAILABLE AS
`PRIOR ART TO THE ’493 PATENT ..................................................... 12
`VI. SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART ......................................... 17
`CASIO IS ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART ...................................................... 17
`A.
`JUEN IS ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART ........................................................ 18
`B.
`TAKASE IS ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART .................................................... 18
`C.
`D. MISAWA IS ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART .................................................... 19
`VII. GROUND 1: THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`CLAIMS 1, 3, 5, AND 10 ARE OBVIOUS OVER CASIO IN
`VIEW OF JUEN ....................................................................................... 20
`A.
`CLAIM 1 ............................................................................................ 20
`1.
`Claim 1 [Preamble] ................................................................. 20
`
`3.
`4.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`B.
`C.
`
`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`Claim 1(a) ............................................................................... 22
`2.
`Claim 1(b) ............................................................................... 28
`3.
`Claim 1(c) ............................................................................... 32
`4.
`Claim 1(d) ............................................................................... 34
`5.
`Claim 1(e) ............................................................................... 44
`6.
`Claim 1(f) ............................................................................... 48
`7.
`8. Mapping for the Same “Signal Processing Unit” of Claim
`1(b) Performing the Functionality Recited in Claims
`1(d)-1(f) .................................................................................. 52
`CLAIM 3 ............................................................................................ 56
`CLAIM 5 ............................................................................................ 57
`1.
`Claim 5 [Preamble] ................................................................. 57
`2.
`Claim 5(a) ............................................................................... 57
`3.
`Claim 5(b) ............................................................................... 57
`4.
`Claim 5(c) ............................................................................... 57
`5.
`Claim 5(d) ............................................................................... 57
`6.
`Claim 5(e) ............................................................................... 58
`7.
`Claim 5(f) ............................................................................... 58
`CLAIM 10 .......................................................................................... 60
`1.
`Claim 10 [Preamble] ............................................................... 60
`2.
`Claim 10(a) ............................................................................. 60
`3.
`Claim 10(b) ............................................................................. 61
`4.
`Claim 10(c) ............................................................................. 61
`5.
`Claim 10(d) ............................................................................. 61
`6.
`Claim 10(e) ............................................................................. 66
`7.
`Claim 10(f) ............................................................................. 67
`8.
`Claim 10(g) ............................................................................. 67
`VIII. GROUND 2: THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`CLAIM 4 IS OBVIOUS OVER CASIO IN VIEW OF JUEN IN
`FURTHER VIEW OF TAKASE .............................................................. 68
`A.
`CLAIM 4(A) ........................................................................................ 68
`B.
`CLAIM 4(B) ........................................................................................ 70
`
`D.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`
`IX. GROUND 3: THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`CLAIMS 6 AND 11 ARE OBVIOUS OVER CASIO IN VIEW OF
`JUEN IN FURTHER VIEW OF MISAWA ............................................. 74
`A.
`CLAIM 6 ............................................................................................ 74
`1.
`Claim 6(a) ............................................................................... 74
`2.
`Claim 6(b) ............................................................................... 76
`CLAIM 11 .......................................................................................... 79
`B.
`X. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 80
`XI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................... 81
`A.
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ................................................................. 81
`B.
`RELATED MATTERS ........................................................................... 81
`C.
`LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL .......................................................... 82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ............................................. 12
`
`Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst., 849 F.3d 1073
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-
`01357, slip op. (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................................... 7, 10
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29
`(PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) .......................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ............................................................ 13
`
`Olympus Corp., et al. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2018-00904, Paper 9 (PTAB
`December 26, 2018) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Philips Elec. & Pharm. Indus. Corp. v. Thermal & Elecs. Indus., Inc., 450
`F.2d 1164 (3d Cir. 1971) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................... 5
`
`RPX Corp., et al. v. Iridescent Networks, Inc., IPR2018-00254, Paper 20
`(PTAB Dec. 10, 2018) .......................................................................................... 13
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd., 929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......... 13
`
`Sandoz Inc. v. Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd., IPR2018-00156, Paper 11 (PTAB
`Jun. 5, 2018) ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Silicon Labs., Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., IPR2015-00615, Paper 9 (PTAB
`Aug. 14, 2015) ...................................................................................................... 12
`
`Valeo North America, Inc. v. Magna Elec., Inc., IPR2015-00251, Paper 18
`(PTAB May 26, 2016) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`ZTE Corp., et al. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2018-00236, Paper 2 (PTAB
`November 22, 2017) ............................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Statutes:
`
`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .........................................................................................17, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .........................................................................................18, 19
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .............................................................................................. 18
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................ 4
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Regulations:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ............................................................................................... 90
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................................................................... 90
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 81
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................... 81
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ........................................................................................... 82
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ........................................................................................... 82
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .................................................................................................. 89
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).............................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ............................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ......................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ......................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ......................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ......................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ................................................................................................ 90
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. requests Inter Partes Review of Claims 1, 3-6, and 10-
`
`11 (the “Challenged Claims”) of USPN 8,339,493 assigned to Maxell, Ltd. (’493
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001)). The purportedly patentable feature of the Challenged Claims is
`
`an electric camera having three modes of operation (monitoring a static image,
`
`recording a static image, and recording a moving video), where each mode of
`
`operation employs a different pixel resolution. But this feature, incorporated into a
`
`digital electric camera with included display capable of taking both still photos and
`
`moving video, was already known. The primary cited reference in this Petition is a
`
`user manual for a Casio digital camera, Casio (Ex. 1004), disclosing almost all the
`
`limitations recited in the challenged independent claims. The only limitations not
`
`expressly disclosed by Casio are hardware and software components readily known
`
`in the art, as evidenced by the secondary reference, Juen, as well as the ’493 Patent
`
`itself, which admits some of these components were known. (Dec. 88-89). 1 As
`
`detailed below, the Challenged Claims are obvious, and IPR should be instituted.
`
`II.
`
`THE ’493 PATENT
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’493 Patent
`The ’493 Patent describes an electric camera for recording both still images
`
`and moving video images. (Dec. 66). The camera includes a CCD image sensor with
`
`
`1 All citations to “Dec.” are to Ex. 1003, Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez.
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`an arbitrary but relatively large number of pixels. (’493 Patent, 4:34-49; Dec. 67).
`
`The ’493 Patent discusses the need to display video recorded by the camera
`
`conforming to the NTSC or PAL system, which displays 240 effective scanning
`
`lines. (’493 Patent, 1:30-50, 7:8:51-58, 10:18-21; Dec. 32). Therefore, the camera
`
`reduces the number of pixels for displaying a still (i.e., static) image on the monitor
`
`or recording a moving video image but uses the full CCD (image sensor) pixel
`
`resolution for recording a still image. (’493 Patent, 3:8-13; Dec. 37-40).
`
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims
`
`B.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/845,266 (“the ’493 Application”), from which
`
`the ’493 Patent issued, was filed on July 28, 2010. The ’493 Application claims
`
`priority to JP 2000-006064 filed January 11, 2000. (’493 Patent, (30)).
`
`Summary of Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims
`
`C.
`The purported invention of the ’493 Patent—an electric camera for displaying
`
`and recording both still and moving images at different resolutions—was well
`
`known prior to the ’493 Patent’s priority date. (Dec. 88-89).
`
`Casio teaches a digital camera with multiple modes, each having different
`pixel resolutions. Casio teaches a megapixel CCD and maximum “Recorded Image
`Size” for static images of “1280 x 960 pixels.” (Casio, 10, 76, 118). An image to be
`composed is viewable on an LCD viewfinder having 555x220 pixels. (Casio, 119).
`
`A moving video is recorded in a 320x240-pixel AVI format. (Casio, 61). Thus, Casio
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`teaches multiple modes, including monitoring (viewing) a still image on an included
`
`LCD, recording a still image, and recording a moving video, where each mode has
`
`a different pixel resolution. (Dec. 88-89).
`
`Level of Skill of a POSITA
`
`D.
`A POSITA at the time of the ’493 Patent—which, for purposes of this Petition
`
`is January 11, 2000—would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Computer Science, or an equivalent degree with at least two years of experience in
`
`the field of digital image processing, digital cameras, electronic imaging, or a related
`
`field. Additional education may substitute for lesser work experience and vice-versa.
`
`(Dec. 32).
`
`E. Opinions of a POSITA
`Petitioner submits Exhibit 1003, Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, as
`
`evidence supporting its arguments. A proper unpatentability analysis entails
`
`considering Dr. Rodriguez’s reasonable understanding or appreciation of the
`
`discussed references. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst.,
`
`849 F.3d 1073, 1074-75 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Valeo North America, Inc. v. Magna Elec.,
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00251, Paper 18 at 18-19 (PTAB May 26, 2016); MPEP 2112 (“The
`
`express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon
`
`in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.”) and 2144.01. Dr.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`Rodriguez’s understanding of what would have been understood from a reference as
`
`of the ’493 Patent’s priority date should be considered.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Apple certifies the ’493 Patent is available for IPR and Apple is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the ’493 Patent. Apple is
`
`not the owner of the ’493 Patent, has not filed a civil action challenging the validity
`
`of any claim of the ’493 Patent, and this Petition is not filed more than one year after
`
`Apple was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’493 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’493 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10 are obvious under § 103(a) over Casio (Ex.
`1004) in view of Juen (Ex. 1005)
`Ground 2: Claim 4 is obvious under § 103(a) over Casio in view of Juen and
`further in view of Takase (Ex. 1006)
`Ground 3: Claims 6 and 11 are obvious under § 103(a) over Casio in view of
`Juen and further in view of Misawa (Ex. 1008)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`Sections VII-IX identify where each element of the Challenged Claims is
`
`found in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the
`
`supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and
`
`the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Sections VII-
`
`IX. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001–1028 are also attached.
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In this proceeding, claims are interpreted under the same standard applied by
`
`Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg.
`
`197 (Oct. 11, 2018); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc). Under this standard, words in a claim are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, which is the meaning understood by a POSITA in view of the patent and
`
`file history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. Dictionaries or other extrinsic sources
`
`may assist in determining the plain and ordinary meaning but cannot override a
`
`meaning that is unambiguous from the intrinsic evidence. Id. Except for the
`
`constructions provided below, Apple applies the plain and ordinary meaning to the
`
`recited claim terms.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1: “effective scanning lines…of a display screen”
`
`In
`
`the Copending Litigation, Maxell proposed
`
`the following claim
`
`construction for “effective scanning lines…of a display screen”: “the number of
`
`lines on a display screen corresponding to an actually displayed image.” (Ex. 1011,
`5
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, 11). Apple applies this
`
`claim construction for purposes of this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 3-5, and 10: “mixing…signal charges accumulated
`in
`the N number
`of
`vertically
`arranged
`pixel
`lines”/“mixed...from the N number of vertically arranged pixel
`lines”
`
`In
`
`the Copending Litigation, Maxell proposed
`
`the following claim
`
`construction for “mixing…signal charges accumulated in the N number of vertically
`
`arranged pixel lines”: “combining signal charges from multiple pixels / mixed means
`
`combined.” (Ex. 1011, 16). Apple applies this claim construction for purposes of
`
`this IPR.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 4, 6, and 11: “an image-instability detector”
`
`In the Copending Litigation, the Parties agreed to the following claim
`
`construction for “an image-instability detector”: “a detector, such as a gyroscopic
`
`sensor or the like, capable of detecting an image instability of the camera.” (Ex.
`
`1011, 2). Apple applies this claim construction for purposes of this IPR.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 4, 6, and 11: “an image-instability of the electric
`camera”
`
`In the Copending Litigation, the Parties agreed to the following claim
`
`construction for “an image-instability of the electric camera”: “instability caused by
`
`vertical and/or horizontal movement of the electric camera.” (Ex. 1011, 2). Apple
`
`applies this claim construction for purposes of this IPR.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`
`IV. THE BOARD’S DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`A. Application of the General Plastic Factors
`Two IPRs were previously filed against the ’493 Patent. For the first IPR, ZTE
`
`Corp., et al. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2018-00236 (“’236 IPR”), only Claims 5-6 were
`
`challenged. Id. at Paper 2 at 1. The Board declined to institute the IPR. Id. at Paper
`
`9 at 3. The second IPR, Olympus Corp., et al. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2018-00904 (“’904
`
`IPR”), was terminated prior to an institution decision. Id. at Paper 9 at 2-3.
`
`Application of the General Plastic factors weighs in favor of institution.
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, slip
`
`op. at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19) (precedential as to § II.B.4.i).
`
`Factor 1: Apple has not previously filed a petition against the ’493 Patent.
`
`Maxell asserted the ’493 Patent against ZTE in a lawsuit filed November 18, 2016.
`
`(’236 IPR, Paper 2 at 1). In a separate lawsuit filed March 15, 2019, Maxell asserted
`
`the ’493 Patent against Petitioner Apple Inc. (Ex. 1010, Maxell v. Apple, Complaint
`
`for Patent Infringement). Other than ZTE and Apple being defendants in different
`
`litigation matters separated by almost 2.5 years, there is no relationship between ZTE
`
`and Apple involving the ’493 Patent. Similarly, for the ’904 IPR, there is no
`
`relationship between Apple and Olympus involving the ’493 Patent.
`
`Factor 1 favors institution.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`Factor 2: The references forming the basis for the grounds of unpatentability
`
`in the present IPR were located by Apple’s counsel since the March 15, 2019, filing
`
`of the Maxell v. Apple litigation.
`
`Factor 2 favors institution.
`
`Factor 3: The patent owner preliminary response in the ’236 and ’904 IPRs
`
`had been filed at the time of filing the present IPR. However, because this IPR
`
`applies different art for the challenged independent claims than used in the ’236 and
`
`’904 IPRs, the preliminary responses are irrelevant to this IPR, and Apple does not
`
`gain any tactical advantage.
`
`Misawa (Ex. 1008) is being applied in this IPR for claims 6 and 11. Misawa
`
`(Misawa ’482) was cited as the primary reference challenging all claims in the ’904
`
`IPR (terminated prior to institution decision), including being applied to dependent
`
`claims 6 and 11. (’904 IPR, Paper 2 at 7, 67-70, 74). Because Misawa is presented
`
`with new evidence (Casio and Juen, Ex. 1005) and new arguments relative to the
`
`challenged independent claims, citation of Misawa for claims 6 and 11 does not give
`
`Apple a tactical advantage. Additionally, because the preliminary response filed in
`
`the ’904 IPR did not address claims 6 and 11 for which Misawa is applied, Apple
`
`gains no tactical advantage. Id. at Paper 6.
`
`Factor 3 favors institution.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`Factor 4: Apple and its counsel commenced prior-art searches no earlier than
`
`approximately May 2019 and continued to perform prior art searching as late as
`
`October 2019. The applied references for this IPR were located in the May-October
`
`2019 time period, with the Casio reference (Ex. 1004) being located in late October
`
`2019. Obtaining evidence Casio is a printed publication required several months,
`
`including obtaining a declaration from Casio and locating third parties who had
`
`received the Casio digital camera disclosed in the Casio reference. There has been
`
`no unreasonable delay between the time of locating the cited references and
`
`obtaining the evidence Casio was a publicly accessible printed publication, and
`
`filing this IPR.
`
`Factor 4 favors institution.
`
`Factor 5: Apple was sued approximately 28 months after filing of the ZTE
`
`litigation. Apple has been diligently engaged in prior art searching and preparation
`
`of this IPR since being sued.
`
`Factor 5 favors institution.
`
`Factors 6 and 7: The Board’s finite resources will not be adversely affected
`
`by this IPR, as different art is applied for the independent claims than previously
`
`considered by the Board in the ’236 and ’904 IPRs. For dependent claims 6 and 11
`
`in the present IPR citing Misawa, the Board will not be repeating work or engaging
`
`in duplicative efforts, given the newly-cited Casio reference. Regarding factor 7, the
`9
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`’236 IPR was not instituted and the ’904 IPR was terminated before an institution
`
`decision. The present IPR therefore does not affect the statutory one-year period for
`
`a final determination.
`
`Factors 6 and 7 also favor institution.
`
`Because all General Plastic factors favor institution, Apple respectfully
`
`requests the Board not exercise its discretion under § 314(a) to deny this Petition.
`
`B. Apple Has Not Delayed in Filing This Petition
`While there is a parallel district court proceeding involving the ’493 Patent,
`
`the district court has not been presented with or invested any time in the analysis of
`
`prior art invalidity issues. (Ex. 1009, Docket Control Order, Maxell Ltd. v. Apple
`
`Inc, No. 5:19-cv-0036-RWS (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2019), ECF No. 46) (the “Copending
`
`Litigation”). Apple does not intend to rely on the Grounds presented in this Petition
`
`in the Copending Litigation. Therefore, this proceeding will address different issues
`
`than the Copending Litigation. The Final Election of Asserted Prior Art is not due
`
`until April 7, 2020. Id. at 4. Although trial is currently set for October 2020, it would
`
`be improper to decline to institute IPR on that basis because (1) the trial date may be
`
`continued; (2) even if trial is not continued, the district court litigation may need to
`
`continue beyond a final written decision here for any number of reasons, including
`
`the possibility of a bifurcated damages trial and lengthy post-trial motions; (3) this
`
`Petition presents Grounds not raised in Petitioner’s invalidity contentions in the
`10
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`Copending Litigation, and thus, there are unique issues of patentability raised here
`
`that will not be decided by the jury in the Copending Litigation; (4) the district court
`
`has not resolved the parties’ claim construction disputes (and may not fully do so
`
`prior to any trial), leaving open the possibility that any jury determination on validity
`
`will be based on unsettled questions of law; (5) validity issues in the Copending
`
`Litigation will be decided based on the clear and convincing standard, which is
`
`higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in IPR such that,
`
`even if the grounds of unpatentability presented in this Petition overlapped entirely
`
`with invalidity arguments raised in district court, the Challenged Claims may be
`
`determined unpatentable in IPR even if a jury, presented with the same evidence,
`
`determines it is not invalid under the clear and convincing standard; and (7) doing
`
`so would render nugatory the 1-year filing period of § 315(b).
`
`Denying institution based on any advanced state of the Copending Litigation
`
`is inconsistent with the IPR statutory scheme and congressional intent. Congress was
`
`aware of the possibility of parallel litigation but did not authorize the Director to
`
`deny an IPR merely because of the events or timing of a parallel litigation. Such a
`
`rigid approach undercuts (or completely ignores) the 1-year safe harbor timeline for
`
`filing an IPR. Allowing a discretionary denial based on the timing of district court
`
`litigation all but renders the 1-year deadline moot and replaces Congress’s
`
`considered analysis of the timeframe in which a petition may be filed. “[I]t is
`11
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`improper for the Board to use discretion in a way that contradicts the
`
`statutory design.” Silicon Labs., Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., IPR2015-00615, Paper
`
`9 at 24-25 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2015) (“[W]e are not persuaded that it would be a
`
`prudent exercise of the discretion granted by § 325(d) to truncate the ability of a
`
`petitioner to make full use of the one-year window Congress expressly provided
`
`through § 315(b).”). Section 315(b) originally contained only a 6-month filing
`
`window, which was amended to 1-year prior to passage of the AIA to “afford
`
`defendants a reasonable opportunity to identify and understand the patent claims that
`
`are relevant to the litigation” before having to file an IPR petition. 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl). Finally, discretionary denials
`
`based on the timing of district court litigation will encourage forum-shopping for
`
`infringement lawsuits and otherwise remove the PTAB as an alternative forum
`
`for challenging patent validity when the patent owner selects a “fast” district court.
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2143 (2016).
`
`For these reasons, and those explained below, this IPR should be instituted.
`
`V.
`
`CASIO IS A PRINTED PUBLICATION AVAILABLE AS PRIOR ART
`TO THE ’493 PATENT
`
`Casio (Ex. 1004) is a photocopy of a paper version of the user manual for the
`
`Casio QV-8000SX digital camera, which was on sale prior to the ’493 Patent’s
`
`priority date. The Casio reference used as the primary reference in the proposed
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`Grounds is a printed publication that was publicly available and accessible to persons
`
`concerned with the art at least as early as November 1999.
`
`A document is a printed publication if it has been disseminated or has
`
`otherwise been publicly available. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1981)
`
`(citing Philips Elec. & Pharm. Indus. Corp. v. Thermal & Elecs. Indus., Inc., 450
`
`F.2d 1164, 1171 (3d Cir. 1971)). A printed publication is publicly accessible if a
`
`POSITA could, after exercising reasonable diligence, access the publication.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd., 929 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019);
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 10-11
`
`(PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (designated precedential); Sandoz Inc. v. Abbvie
`
`Biotechnology Ltd., IPR2018-00156, Paper 11 at 9-10 (PTAB Jun. 5, 2018). There
`
`is no requirement that a document needs to be disseminated to more than one
`
`person—or even to one person—to be a printed publication. RPX Corp., et al. v.
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc., IPR2018-00254, Paper 20 at 35 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2018).
`
`The first sales of the Casio QV-8000SX digital camera were in April 1999.
`
`(Ex. 1026, Lang Dec., ¶ 2). In 1999, it was Casio’s regular business practice to
`
`include a hardcopy of a User Guide for the QV-8000SX with each sale of the QV-
`
`8000SX camera sold. (Ex. 1027,