UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2020-00597
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,339,493
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`5/31/19 Scheduling Order from District Court Action
`Apple’s Invalidity Contentions from District Court Action
`Apple’s Supplemental Invalidity Contentions from District Court
`Action
`Apple’s Motion for Leave to Supplement
`Maxell’s Opposition to Motion for Leave to Supplement
`Court Order on Motion for Leave to Supplement
`Apple’s Final Election of Prior Art
`Excerpts from Bovik Report
`Sony Chart from Apple’s Invalidity Contentions
`Casio Chart from Apple’s Invalidity Contentions
`1/8/20 Minute Order
`8/28/19 Minute Order
`9/18/19 Minute Order
`Markman Decision from District Court Action
`4/20/20 Scheduling Order from District Court Action
`Declaration of Tiffany A. Miller
`Notices of Compliance
`COVID Standing Order
`Docket from District Court Action
`Decision denying Apple’s Motion to Stay
`’236 IPR Preliminary Response
`’236 IPR Institution Decision
`’904 IPR Preliminary Response
`10/9/18 Letter from Maxell to Apple
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,406 to Parulski
`Mansoorian Declaration from ’236 IPR
`5/17/18 Letter from Maxell to Apple
`
`Exhibit #
`2001
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`2027
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Casio Subpoena
`Casio Objections and Response to Subpoena
`Casio Fiscal Year Schedule
`
`2028
`2029
`2030
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION AND
`DENY INSTITUTION FOR ALL GROUNDS PURSUANT TO 35
`U.S.C ............................................................................................................... 2
`A. Application of the General Plastic Factors Weighs in Favor of
`Denying Institution ............................................................................... 4
`1.
`General Plastic Factors 6 and 7 Weigh in Favor of Denial ....... 6
`a.
`The District Court Action Will Resolve the Same
`or Substantially the Same Arguments as Those
`Presented Here ................................................................. 7
`The District Court Action Will Be Complete Well
`Before a Final Written Decision in This
`Proceeding ..................................................................... 13
`Apple’s Inexcusable Delay in Filing the Petition .......... 18
`c.
`General Plastic Factors 4 and 5 Weigh in Favor of Denial ..... 20
`General Plastic Factor 3 Weighs in Favor of Denial ............... 22
`General Plastic Factors 1 and 2 Have Little Probative
`Value in this Case .................................................................... 26
`B. Application of the Fintiv Factors Weighs in Favor of Denying
`Institution ............................................................................................ 27
`III. THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING WITH RESPECT TO ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM ............................................................................. 28
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................ 28
`1.
`Background Of The Relevant Technology .............................. 28
`2.
`Level of Skill of a POSITA ..................................................... 36
`Claim Construction............................................................................. 36
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`b.
`
`B.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`C.
`
`Page
`Petitioner Failed to Establish that Casio Is Prior Art ......................... 38
`1.
`The Etchells Declaration is Insufficient to Show Public
`Accessibility of the Casio User Guide ..................................... 39
`The Etchells Declaration Lacks Corroboration and
`Credibility ................................................................................ 44
`The Casio Press Release Does Not Demonstrate Public
`Accessibility of the User Guide Prior to the Critical Date ...... 45
`Apple Fails to Show Relevant Sales Prior to the Critical
`Date .......................................................................................... 48
`D. Ground 1: Petitioner Failed To Establish That Claims 1, 3, 5,
`and 10 Are Obvious Over Casio In View Of Juen ............................. 49
`1.
`A POSITA Would Not Have Combined Casio and Juen
`Without the Benefit of Hindsight ............................................. 49
`Petitioner fails to establish that Casio in view of Juen
`Discloses Elements 1(a)/5(a)/10(a) .......................................... 53
`Petitioner fails to establish that Casio in view of Juen
`Discloses Elements 1(b)/5(b)/10(b) ......................................... 56
`Petitioner fails to establish that Casio in view of Juen
`Discloses Elements 1(d)/5(e)/10(f) .......................................... 59
`Petitioner fails to establish that Casio in view of Juen
`Discloses the “pixel intervals of K1 pixels” / “intervals of
`a first distance” of Elements 1(d)/5(e)/10(f) and the
`“pixel intervals of K2 pixels” / “intervals of a second
`distance” of Elements 1(e)/5(f)/10(g) ...................................... 61
`Petitioner fails to establish that Casio in view of Juen
`Discloses Claim 3..................................................................... 63
`Ground 2: Petitioner Failed To Establish That Claim 4 Is
`Obvious Over Casio In View Of Juen And Takase ........................... 63
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`E.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`F.
`
`Ground 3: Petitioner Failed To Establish That Claims 6 and 11
`Are Obvious Over Casio In View Of Juen And Misawa ................... 64
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 65
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`A.R.M., Inc. v. Cottingham Agencies Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00671, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2014) ............................................ 46
`Agrinomix, LLC v. Mitchell Ellis Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2017- 00525 .................................................................................................. 23
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp.,
`949 F.3d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 39
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5-6 (PTAB March 20, 2020) .........................passim
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00204, Paper 1 ............................................................................... 21, 22
`ATEN Int’l Co. v. Uniclass Tech. Co.,
`932 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 42
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 23
`Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Canadian Meter Co.,
`184 Fed. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................. 46
`Cisco v. Ramot at Tel Aviv U,
`IPR2020-00123, Paper 14 (PTAB May 15, 2020) ................................... 6, 17, 20
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................................................... 4
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (PTAB May 16, 2019) ....................................... 18, 20
`Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Evalve,
`IPR2019-01546, Paper 7, 12-13 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2020) .................................... 13
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 45
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ........................................passim
`Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00115, Paper 8 (PTAB March 27, 2020) ............................................ 17
`Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co., Ltd. v. Aspen Aerogels, Inc.,
`Case IPR2017-00152, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017) ............................ 53, 64
`Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`936 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 57
`Guardian All. Techs., Inc., v. Tyler Miller,
`IPR2020-00031, 2020 WL 1499414 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2020) ......................... 38
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 4
`Hormel Foods Corp. v. HIP, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00469, Paper 9 (PTAB July 15, 2019) .......................................... 17, 19
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) ................................. 38, 39, 42
`Intel v. VLSI Technology,
`IPR2020-00158, Paper 16 (PTAB May 20, 2020) ............................. 6, 16, 17, 20
`Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 728 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 48
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 39, 43
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................... 1, 2
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`NetApp Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2017-01195, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 12, 2017) ................................................ 12
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ........................................passim
`Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................ 38, 43, 45, 48
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 46
`Samsung v. Uniloc,
`IPR2020-00117, Paper 11 (PTAB May 28, 2020) ................................... 6, 16, 20
`SandBox Logistics LLC v. Proppant Express Investments LLC,
`No. 2019-1684, 2020 WL 2517113 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2020) ........................... 54
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 40, 42
`TLC Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson,
`2017 WL 504682 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2017) ............................................................ 57
`TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................ 43, 44, 45, 46
`VIZIO v. Polaris PowerLED Technologies,
`IPR2020-00043, Paper 30 at 7-12 (PTAB May 4, 2020) ................................... 17
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C § 314(b) ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`35 U.S.C. §316(a)(11) .............................................................................................. 15
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................... 23
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .................................................................................... 36, 37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 at 10 (August 2018) .................................................................. 5
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Maxell, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny institution because Petitioner Apple Inc. (hereinafter, “Apple” or
`
`“Petitioner”) has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the
`
`grounds submitted in its Petition for challenging the patentability of claims 1, 3-6,
`
`and 10-11 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493 (“the ’493 patent”).
`
`First, the Board should exercise its discretion pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`and deny this petition. Application of the General Plastic and Fintiv factors weighs
`
`heavily in favor of denying institution. One of the purposes of IPRs is to be an
`
`“effective and efficient alternative” to litigation. Gen. Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16-17 (PTAB Sept. 6,
`
`2017) (precedential). Here, instituting an IPR would not be an effective or efficient
`
`alternative to litigation, particularly given the advanced stage of the co-pending
`
`District Court case Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS (E.D.
`
`Tex.), the finite resources of the Board, and Apple’s delay in filing its Petition.
`
`Second, Apple fails to show with particularity that the Casio User Guide
`
`(“Casio”) was publicly accessible prior to the critical date of January 11, 2000; this
`
`is fatal to all Grounds.
`
`Third, even if Casio is prior art, Apple’s obviousness analysis fails to show
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`that Casio in view of Juen discloses “an image sensing device with a light
`
`receiving” sensor as well as the claimed “signal processing unit.” These
`
`deficiencies are fatal to all Grounds.
`
`For at least reasons, more fully explained below, Apple has failed to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success on any ground presented.
`
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION AND DENY
`INSTITUTION FOR ALL GROUNDS PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 314
`Apple filed its petition one day before expiration of the one year deadline to
`
`do so. The ’493 Patent is asserted in a co-pending District Court case, Maxell, Ltd.
`
`v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS (E.D. Tex.) (“District Court Action”). The
`
`District Court Action will be complete eleven months before any final decision
`
`would issue in this proceeding. Nor did Apple inform the Board—when attempting
`
`to justify its delay in filing its Petition—that Maxell identified Apple’s
`
`infringement of the claims at issue in the ’493 Patent over a year prior to Apple
`
`filing its Petition, and that the trial date of October 2020 for the District Court
`
`Action was scheduled in May 2019. Ex. 2001.1 The jury trial is scheduled in the
`
`District Court Action only one month after the Board’s anticipated Institution
`
`
`1 As explained further herein, over the next year Maxell consistently and
`periodically identified asserted claims of the ’493 Patent to Apple. See, e.g., Ex.
`1010 at ¶ 51.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Decision, and will adjudicate the validity of the ’493 Patent eleven months before
`
`any Final Written Decision issues in this proceeding.
`
`Not only will the District Court Action conclude long before this
`
`proceeding, but it will also resolve substantially the same invalidity arguments that
`
`Apple raises in the instant Petition. The prior art references relied on in this
`
`proceeding are the same, or substantially the same, as those at issue in the District
`
`Court Action at the time Apple filed its Petition. Apple fought to add and
`
`succeeded in adding its primary reference here, Casio, to the District Court Action,
`
`only to later drop the reference from the District Court Action in a cynical attempt
`
`to avoid discretionary denial here. But Apple only replaced Casio in the underlying
`
`litigation with a similar camera manufactured by Sony, supported by the Sony User
`
`Guide. The Board should not countenance such tactics, as they run directly
`
`contrary to the reasons why the Board declared the NHK and Fintiv cases
`
`precedential, and directly contrary to the purpose of IPR proceedings to be an
`
`“effective and efficient alternative” to litigation, and would needlessly consume the
`
`finite resources of the Board. Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16-17..
`
` Additionally, the challenged claims are substantially the same in scope as
`
`those asserted in the District Court Action at the time Apple filed its Petition. The
`
`Court has already issued a Markman Order and the Court and the parties have
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`spent considerable resources on the District Court Action. Any questions of
`
`whether the grounds of invalidity raised in Apple’s Petition invalidate the asserted
`
`claims of the ’493 Patent will be decided in the District Court action at least eleven
`
`months prior to when the Board would issue a Final Written Decision in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Simply put, instituting an IPR in this circumstance would needlessly
`
`duplicate the District Court Action, and unnecessarily waste the Board’s resources.
`
`See NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20
`
`(PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential) (denying institution under similar facts). For
`
`at least these reasons and those further set forth below, the Board should exercise
`
`its discretion not to institute this proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`A. Application of the General Plastic Factors Weighs in Favor of
`Denying Institution
`There is no requirement that the Board institute IPR. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid
`
`Tech., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, the decision to institute is
`
`delegated to the Board and is purely discretionary. As 35 U.S.C § 314(b) explains,
`
`“[t]he Director shall determine whether to institute an inter partes review.” See also
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(a). The Director’s discretion is informed by many things, including the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`consideration of “the integrity of the patent system, [and] the efficient
`
`administration of the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b).
`
`The USPTO recognized that these factors, and the Board’s discretionary
`
`denial, apply where “other proceedings relating to the same patent, either at the
`
`Office, in district courts, or the ITC” are at advanced stages and will resolve the
`
`same or similar issues presented in the Petition before the Board can. See Trial
`
`Practice Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 at 10 (August 2018). That is because one of
`
`the purposes of IPRs is to be an “effective and efficient alternative” to litigation.
`
`Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16-17. Here, instituting an IPR would
`
`not be an effective or efficient alternative to litigation because the co-pending
`
`District Court Action, among other things, (1) involves the same, or substantially
`
`the same prior art that Apple relies on here, and (2) will be complete well before a
`
`final decision in this proceeding.
`
`The majority of the General Plastic factors weigh heavily in favor of the
`
`Board using its discretion to deny institution. Indeed, even if other factors weighed
`
`in favor of institution, Board precedent demands denial of institution due to
`
`Apple’s delay in filing its Petition and the advanced stage of the District Court
`
`Action. Apple v. Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5-6 (PTAB March 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential); NHK Spring, IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20 (“Institution of an inter
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`partes review under these circumstances would not be consistent with an objective
`
`of the AIA . . . to provide an effective and efficient alternative to district court
`
`litigation. . . . Accordingly, we find that the advanced state of the district court
`
`proceeding is an additional factor that weighs in favor of denying the Petition
`
`under § 314(a).”) (internal quotes omitted); see also Apple v. Fintiv, IPR2020—
`
`00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (same); Samsung v. Uniloc, IPR2020-
`
`00117, Paper 11 (PTAB May 28, 2020) (same); Intel v. VLSI Technology,
`
`IPR2020-00158, Paper 16 (PTAB May 20, 2020) (same); Cisco v. Ramot at Tel
`
`Aviv University, IPR2020-00123, Paper 14 (PTAB May 15, 2020) (same).
`
`1.
`General Plastic Factors 6 and 7 Weigh in Favor of Denial
`Apple boldly claims that the “Board’s finite resources will not be adversely
`
`affected by this IPR.” Petition at 9. But Apple only considers the Board’s resources
`
`in relation to the prior denial of institution of a petition filed by ZTE against the
`
`’493 Patent and ignores the duplicative efforts the Board would engage in as a
`
`result of the co-pending District Court Action. Considering the status of the
`
`District Court Action, and Apple’s delay in filing this Petition, granting institution
`
`here would work against the purposes of IPRs to be an “effective and efficient
`
`alternative” to litigation, and would needlessly consume the finite resources of the
`
`Board. Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16-17.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`a.
`
`The District Court Action Will Resolve the Same or
`Substantially
`the Same Arguments as Those
`Presented Here
`The scope of Apple’s challenge to the ’493 Patent’s validity in this
`
`proceeding is substantially the same as Apple’s challenge in the District Court
`
`Action. For example, there is overlap in the claims challenged in both proceedings.
`
`Here, Apple asserts that Claims 1, 3-6, and 10-11 of the ’493 Patent are
`
`unpatentable. Petition at 1. These claims cover all the asserted claims against
`
`Apple in the District Court Action at the time Apple filed its Petition, including the
`
`independent claims and the same or similar dependent claims. See Ex. 2002 at 2.
`
`The prior art that Apple relies on in its Petition is the same, or substantially
`
`the same, as the prior art at issue in the District Court Action. For example, in the
`
`Petition Apple utilizes Casio, Juen, Misawa, and Takase as references covering the
`
`three grounds presented. In the District Court Action, Apple also relies on Casio,
`
`Juen, Misawa, and Takase to support its invalidity contentions. Ex. 2002 at 35-42;
`
`Ex. 2003 at 37.
`
`With respect to Casio, Apple attempts to mislead the Board by claiming that
`
`the Petition presents grounds not raised in Apple’s invalidity contentions. Petition
`
`at 10. In fact, Apple moved to supplement its invalidity contentions to add Casio,
`
`claiming that Casio was important prior art. Ex. 2004. The parties fully briefed the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`issue, and the Court ultimately ruled in favor of Apple allowing Apple to add
`
`Casio to its invalidity case in the District Court Action. Ex. 2005; Ex. 2006. Then,
`
`after the parties and the Court having spent considerable time briefing and deciding
`
`the issue, Apple withdrew this alleged “important” prior art after filing its Petition
`
`to manufacture a “non-overlapping prior art” argument in anticipated response to
`
`Maxell’s §314 arguments. Ex. 2007.
`
`In any event, even Apple’s Final Election of Prior Art served on April 7,
`
`2020 shows that Apple continues to rely on at least Juen and Misawa to set forth
`
`its invalidity case at trial in the District Court litigation in October 2020—eleven
`
`months before a final written decision is expected in this IPR. See id. at 3.
`
`Thus, substantially the same issues will be decided by a jury, using the same
`
`or similar prior art, same invalidity theories, and substantially the same citations of
`
`the prior art, all eleven months prior to the issuance of a Final Written Decision.
`
`Here, no meaningful distinction exists between Apple’s references and
`
`grounds used in the Petition versus those in the District Court Action. In the
`
`District Court Action, Apple relied upon the same prior art as this Petition until at
`
`least April 7, 2020, at which point it selectively dropped certain prior art references
`
`in an attempt to compensate for its delay in filing its Petition and avoid
`
`discretionary denial. But from Fall of 2019 through April 7, 2020, Apple relied on
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`identical prior art.
`
`For example, Apple dropped the “important prior art” Casio and simply
`
`replaced it with the Sony MVC-FD83 and MVC-FD88 digital cameras (“Sony”)
`
`and their associated manuals. For purposes of analyzing the overlap between the
`
`references and grounds in this proceeding, there is no difference between Casio
`
`and Sony. Indeed, the Court found that Apple failed to demonstrate that Casio
`
`discloses features not previously disclosed in its other prior art, and that “the Casio
`
`Camera seems cumulative to the already disclosed references” including Sony. Ex.
`
`2006 at 6. Apple’s expert in the District Court Action appears to agree:
`
`For example, many companies independently developed products
`having both still and video image capture features, as well as
`electronic image stabilization features, before the filing of the ’493
`patent….
`
`Below are images I took of the Casio QV-8000SX, Apple QuickTake
`200, Sony MVC-FD83, and Sony MVC-FD88 cameras that I used and
`tested.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2008, ¶¶123, 175.
`
`
`
`In fact, an examination of Apple’s invalidity contention charts with respect
`
`to Sony and Casio in the District Court Action illustrate the substantial similarity
`
`between the references and Apple’s use of the references both here and in the
`
`District Court Action. For example, in both matters, Apple argues that the devices
`
`inherently must have a signal processing unit based on their ability to encode in
`
`known still image and video formats, like JPEG. See Ex. 2008 at 61 (“The
`
`existence of a signal processing unit is evident from the camera’s capability to
`
`produce still images compressed in the JPEG format and video images compressed
`
`in the MPEG format.”); Petition at 28 (“Casio discusses processes well understood
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`by a POSITA to be performed by a signal processing unit, such as converting or
`
`encoding images to a JPEG or AVI file format (Casio, 61, 118), converting images
`
`to a lower resolution for display on the monitor (Casio, 16), and digital zoom
`
`(Casio, 58-59).”).
`
`Additionally, a side-by-side comparison of Apple’s use of Casio both here
`
`and in the District Court Action, and Sony in the District Court Action illustrates
`
`the substantial similarity in allegations between Casio and Sony when attempting
`
`to map the claims of the ’493 Patent:
`
`Sony MVCFD83
`
`Casio QV8000SX
`
`it
`A PHOSITA would have found
`obvious
`to modify MVCFD83’s
`multimode camera to operate using an
`image sensing device with a
`light
`receiving sensor having an array of
`pixels
`arranged
`vertically
`and
`horizontally in a grid pattern, in an N
`number of vertically arranged pixel
`lines, as also taught by Sato.
`
`it
`A PHOSITA would have found
`obvious
`to modify QV8000SX’s
`multimode camera to operate using an
`image sensing device with a
`light
`receiving sensor having an array of
`pixels
`arranged
`vertically
`and
`horizontally in a grid pattern, in an N
`number of vertically arranged pixel
`lines, as also taught by Sato.
`
`Compare Ex. 2009 at 15 (Sony chart) with Ex. 2010 at 13 (Casio chart). Many
`
`other examples exist. Id. Thus, there is no substantial difference between Casio
`
`used here and Sony used in the District Court Action.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`Apple’s expert here relies on some of the additional prior art that remains in
`
`the District Court Action, namely Anderson. Ex. 1003. Apple’s expert discusses
`
`Anderson 29 times throughout his report. Id. ¶¶ 39; 61-62; 104; 113; 117; 121;
`
`134-135; 151; 153. Indeed, Apple appears to supplement its contentions with
`
`respect to Juen with Anderson in the same way it does in the District Court Action.
`
`The claims at issue in this proceeding are also the same or similar to those
`
`remaining in the District Court Action, and raise the same validity issues. The
`
`Court ordered Maxell to elect a narrower set of claims. This narrowing should not
`
`have an impact on the Board’s decision with respect to §314. See NetApp Inc. v.
`
`Realtime Data LLC, IPR2017-01195, Paper 9 at 7-8 (PTAB Oct. 12, 2017).
`
`Second, even though independent Claims 1 and 10 are no longer asserted in the
`
`District Court Action, Apple itself acknowledges the substantial overlap at least
`
`between Claims 1, 5, and 10; it substantially relies on its Claim 1 analysis for both
`
`Claims 5 and Claim 10. Petition at 57-68.
`
`The Board should not countenance Apple’s delayed filing of its IPRs, and its
`
`attempt to then take advantage of the Court’s narrowing order after filing its
`
`petition in an attempt to avoid discretionary denial. This “gotcha” tactic runs
`
`contrary to why the Board found NHK and Fintiv important to declare precedential.
`
`Moreover, Apple’s position in the District Court Action is that there is
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`complete overlap of issues. “Apple reserves the right to amend its election of prior
`
`art as appropriate. . . .” Ex. 2007 at 2. Apple’s invalidity contentions in the District
`
`Court Action also purport to “incorporate[] by reference all prior art cited during
`
`prosecution of the Asserted Patents, and all inter partes review (IPR) petitions
`filed against the Asserted Patents and the prior art cited in these IPR petitions” Ex.
`
`2002 at 2. In other words, Apple has expressly and specifically sought to
`
`incorporate all of the Petition’s contentions into the District Court Action.
`
`Thus, substantially the same issues will be decided by a jury, using the same
`
`prior art, eleven months prior to the issuance of a Final Written Decision. At
`
`bottom, the issues presented in the Petition that differ from what will be argued in
`
`the District Court Action do not meaningfully distinguish the arguments in this
`
`proceeding from those in the District Court Action. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v.
`
`Evalve, IPR2019-01546, Paper 7, 12-13 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2020) (denying institution
`
`despite lack of a 1:1 overlap of claims and prior art, finding such distinction not
`
`meaningful).
`
`b.
`
`The District Court Action Will Be Complete Well
`Before a Final Written Decision in This Proceeding
`Not only are the substantive arguments overlapping, but the District Court
`
`Action will be complete well before a Final Written Decision is issued in this
`
`proceeding. The Court has invested significant time and resources into the District
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00597
`
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Court Action. For example, the Court conducted a four-hour Markman