`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`V.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`PATENT OWNER.
`___________________
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S NOTICE
`REGARDING MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`
`
`
`
`There is no reason why Petitioner could not have thoroughly challenged the
`
`ʼ862 Patent in a single petition. “Based on the Board’s prior experience, one
`
`petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.”
`
`(PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019) (“TPG”) at 59.) As
`
`the Board well understands, “[t]wo or more petitions filed against the same patent
`
`at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent
`
`owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the
`
`patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” (Id.)
`
`Petitioner offers no justifiable basis to need two petitions. First, despite its
`
`contention, Petitioner cannot justify multiple petitions based on its own choice to
`
`use prior art that it admits faces printed publication issues. (Paper 3 (IPR2020-
`
`00611) at 2 (“Roh faces printed publication issues that may be raised by Patent
`
`Owner.”), Paper 3 (IPR2020-00613) at 3 (“Sadrabadi is an NPL reference, so it
`
`(like Roh) faces printed publication issues that may be raised by Patent Owner.”).)
`
`These are not issues raised by a dispute over the critical date of the ’862 Patent;
`
`they are whether Petitioner has met its burden to show when any references were
`
`made publicly available to even begin the inquiry as to whether it occurred before
`
`or after the critical date. Second, Petitioner seeks to justify two petitions in an
`
`effort to comply with the Board’s rules regarding “the necessary specificity as to
`
`how the prior art meets the claim limitations while meeting the word limit
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`applicable to IPR petitions.” (Paper 3 (IPR2020-00611) at 3, Paper 3 (IPR2020-
`
`00613) at 3.) This justification rings hollow in light of Petitioner’s 224-page Expert
`
`Declaration it filed in in IPR2020-00611 and its separate 184-page Expert
`
`Declaration in IPR2020-00613. This is especially true where, as set out in Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Responses, Petitioner still improperly incorporated argument
`
`by reference in multiple places—including in attempting to address the very
`
`printed publication issues that Petitioner claimed justifies two petitions.
`
`To further assist the Board, Patent Owner provides the below responses to
`
`the Board’s questions as set out in the TPG:
`
`1) What are the differences among the two petitions and are they material?
`
`As Petitioner acknowledges through its ranking, there is significant overlap
`
`in the utilization of prior art references and each Petition challenges the same
`
`single independent claim and three dependent claims. (Paper 3 at 1–2.) As
`
`Petitioner points out, “in each petition, the grounds addressing claim 9 (the only
`
`challenged independent claim) rely on two references in common (Maltsev and
`
`Haykin) and one additional reference (Roh or Lin for Petition 1 [IPR2020–00611];
`
`Sadrabadi for Petition 2)” and the same holds true for two of the three challenged
`
`dependent claims (claims 11, 12). (Paper 3 at 4.) The additional independent claim,
`
`claim 10, uses the same reference—Yang—in each case. (Paper 3 at 1–2.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Notably, Petitioner frames its necessity for two petitions to ameliorate
`
`printed publication issues of Roh and Sadrabadi. But Petition 1 includes the
`
`grounds that utilize Lin, and thus ameliorate Petitioner’s alleged concerns over the
`
`printed publication status of Roh and Sadrabadi. (Paper 3 at 1–2.) Adding a second
`
`petition that includes a reference with issues related to printed publication
`
`(Sadrabadi) does not assist Petitioner in mitigating and risk to its chosen prior art
`
`references. Petitioner addressed that risk within the first Petition itself by using Lin
`
`(a U.S. patent) as an alternative to Roh. See id.
`
`2) Why should the Board institute additional petitions if one will suffice?
`
`Petitioner argues that “both the Administrative Procedures Act and due
`
`process concerns weigh against denying institution of either petition based on the
`
`Board’s discretion.” (Paper 3 at 4.) Neither is true.
`
`“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question
`
`whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S.
`
`Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). That discretion includes the discretion to deny a petition.
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s
`
`decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s
`
`discretion.”) Indeed, “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an
`
`IPR proceeding.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Cir. 2016). No violation of the APA or due process would occur if the Board
`
`declined to institute one or both petitions.
`
`First, the very same reason that Petitioner argues that “institution of both
`
`petitions would not implicate concerns regarding the Board’s time and resources
`
`required” is the same reason Petitioner need not have filed two petitions—there is
`
`significant overlap between the asserted prior art. In Comcast Cable Comm’s, LLC
`
`v. Veveo, Inc., IPR2019-00238, Paper 15 (PTAB July 5, 2019), the Board found
`
`overlap in the references at issue in multiple petitions and declined to institute all
`
`of them. Similarly, the Board can, and should, exercise its discretion here to
`
`decline to institute one or more of the present petitions.
`
`Second, as noted in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, there are
`
`sufficient grounds to deny both petitions under § 314(a) in light of the Fintiv
`
`Factors. See also Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-00686, Paper 11, 6 (PTAB Aug. 27, 2019) (“When determining whether
`
`to exercise our discretion under § 314(a), [the Board] consider[s], among other
`
`factors, whether a petitioner has filed multiple other petitions challenging the same
`
`patent.”).
`
`Third, denial of one or more of the petitions is appropriate because Petitioner
`
`fails to comply with the Board’s rules. As noted in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, Petitioner violates the word limit by incorporating arguments by
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`reference voluminous declarations and those declarations further cross-reference
`
`other portions. This is particularly egregious, and warrants denial of both
`
`petitions—and at least one—given that Petitioner claims two petitioners are needed
`
`“to ensure the grounds contained the necessary specificity.” This was a promise
`
`Petitioner failed to keep.
`
`3) Ranking of petitions
`
`While Patent Owner does not believe that either Petition should be
`
`instituted, if the Board is inclined to institute on one Petition, it should be IPR-
`
`2019-00611.
`
`Petitioner has not shown compelling circumstances to warrant deviating
`
`from the Board’s policy that “multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in
`
`the vast majority of cases.” (TPG 59.) For the reasons stated in its Preliminary
`
`Response, Patent Owner believes both petitions should be denied on their merits,
`
`pursuant to the Board’s ¶ 314(a) discretion, and/or so Petitioner is not rewarded for
`
`its inefficient filing decision that imposed a burdensome task on the Board and
`
`Patent Owner, and may also signal to future petitioners that its own choices that
`
`lead to multiple petitions are not a sufficient reason for there to be two petitions.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated: May 26, 2020
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Steven W. Hartsell/
`Steven W. Hartsell (Reg. No. 58,788)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm St., Ste. 4400
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Alexander E. Gasser (Reg. No. 48,760)
`Joseph M. Ramirez (Reg. No. 70,716)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm St., Ste. 4400
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Response to Petitioner’s Notice Regarding Multiple Petitions, by electronic means
`
`on May 26, 2020 at the following addresses of record:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Arvind Jairam
`PH-Samsung-BNR-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Dated: May 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Steven W. Hartsell/
`Steven W. Hartsell (Reg. No. 58,788)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`