`
`Filed on behalf of: Philip Morris Products, S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: September 18, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS, S.A.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2020-00919
`Patent 9,901,123
`______________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO THE
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
` Page(s)
`
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech.,
`IPR2020-00223, Paper 12 (May 26, 2020) ........................................................... 3
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate
`GMBH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) ............................................................. 1
`Amazon.com v. M2M Sols.,
`IPR2019-01204, Paper 14 (Jan. 23, 2020) ............................................................ 2
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) .............................................. 2, 4, 5, 7
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (May 13, 2020) ........................................................... 4
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00202, Paper 11 (July 15, 2020) ....................................................... 4, 5
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks,
`IPR2020-00506, Paper 11 (Sept. 1, 2020) ............................................................ 7
`Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10x Genomics,
`IPR2019-00567, Paper 23 (Aug. 8, 2019) ............................................................ 3
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns v. Veveo,
`IPR2019-00239, Paper 15 (July 5, 2019) ............................................................. 5
`Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO,
`IPR2019-00547, Paper 15 (Aug. 30, 2019) .......................................................... 3
`Juniper Networks v. Packet Intelligence,
`IPR2020-00338, Paper 22 (Sept. 9, 2020) ............................................................ 7
`Nichia Corp. v. Lighting Sci. Group Corp.,
`IPR2019-01259, Paper 21 (Jan. 15, 2020) ............................................................ 3
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Dynamics,
`IPR2020-00499, Paper 41 (Aug. 12, 2020) .................................................. 3, 4, 6
`Volkswagen Grp. of Am. v. Mich. Motor Techs,
`IPR2020-00452, Paper 12 (Sept. 9, 2020) ............................................................ 2
`Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharms.,
`906 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 5, 6
`Zonar Sys. v. Innovative Global Sys.,
`IPR2020-00154, Paper 16 (May 12, 2020) ........................................................... 5
`STATUTES
`28 U.S.C. § 1659 ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Ex.
`Description
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123 (“the ’123 patent”)
`1002
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,901,123
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Seetharama C. Deevi in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of ’123 Patent (“Deevi Decl”)
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Seetharama C. Deevi
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,249,586 (“Morgan”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,947,874 (“Brooks”)
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0102013 (“Adams”)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,144,962 (“Counts-962”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,060,671 (“Counts-671”)
`1010 Chemical and Biological Studies on New Cigarette Prototypes that
`Heat Instead of Burn Tobacco, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
`Monograph (1988) (“RJR’s 1988 Monograph”) (markings on exhibit
`appeared in the used copy purchased by counsel)
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,692,525 (“Counts-525”)
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 5,095,921 (“Losee”)
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,591,368 (“the ’368 patent”)
`1014
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 96/32854
`(“Baggett”)
`1015 Korean Patent No. 10-0636287 (“Park”)
`(including certified English translation and original Korean version of
`patent)
`Philip Morris Incorporated Invention Record (submitted May 19,
`1994; witnessed May 23, 1994) (“May 1994 Invention Record”)
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 4,510,950 (“Keritsis”)
`
`1016
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Ex.
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`Description
`Steven M. Kaplan, Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering
`Dictionary (2004)
`IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th
`ed. 2000) (“IEEE Dictionary”)
`Philip Morris Incorporated Invention Record (dated October 11, 1988)
`(“October 1988 Invention Record”)
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 2,104,266 (“McCormick”)
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,185 (“Collins”)
`1023 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0215167 (“Crooks”)
`1024 U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/722,036
`1025
`Patent Owner’s infringement chart for ’123 patent, In the Matter of
`Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`___, EDIS Doc. ID 707369 (Filed Apr. 9, 2020) (“Infringement
`Chart”)
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 5,498,855 (“the ’855 patent”)
`1027 Modern Dictionary of Electronics (7th ed., 1999) (excerpt)
`1028 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed., 2001) (excerpt)
`1029 Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th ed., 2008) (excerpt)
`1030
`The Lady Smokes, www.theladysmokes.com (archived at
`web.archive.org, 2006-2007)
`1031 Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology (1999) (excerpt)
`1032 Complaint for Patent Infringement, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v.
`Altria Client Services, No. 1:20-cv-393 (E.D. Va. April 9, 2020)
`1033 Document Filing Report for In the Matter of Certain Tobacco Heating
`Articles and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1199 (ITC filed April
`9, 2020)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1040
`
`Ex.
`Description
`1034 Civil docket report for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client
`Services LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. filed April 9,
`2020)
`1035 Order Granting Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Invoke the
`Statutory Stay of Plaintiff’s Claims Relating to U.S. Patent Nos.
`9,839,238, 9,901,123, and 9,930,915 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1659, RAI
`Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Altria Client Services LLC, No. 1:20-cv-
`00393-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. June 19, 2020), ECF No. 27
`Excerpt from Respondent’s Joint Disclosure of Final Contentions from
`ITC Investigation 337-TA-1199 (September 18, 2020) (Final
`Invalidity Contentions)
`Exhibit C1 to Respondent’s Joint Disclosure of Final Contentions from
`ITC Investigation 337-TA-1199 (September 18, 2020) (Final
`Invalidity Contentions)
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, In the Matter of Certain Tobacco
`Heating Articles and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1199 (ITC
`August 13, 2020)
`1039 Commission Opinion, In the Matter of Certain Unmanned Aerial
`Vehicles and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1133 (ITC September
`8, 2020)
`Philip Morris Products SA’s Comments to Complainants’ Public
`Interest Statement, In the Matter of Certain Tobacco Heating Articles
`and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1199 (ITC April 23, 2020)
`1041 Comments of The American Conservative Union, In the Matter of
`Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, No. 337-
`1199 (ITC April 22, 2020)
`Public Interest Comments of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free
`Alternatives Association, In the Matter of Certain Tobacco Heating
`Articles and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1199 (ITC April 23,
`2020)
`
`1042
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Ex.
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`Description
`Public Interest Comments of Congressman George Holding, In the
`Matter of Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof,
`No. 337-TA-1199 (ITC April 15, 2020)
`Public Interest Comments of Dr. Nikan H. Khatibi, MD, In the Matter
`of Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, No.
`337-TA-1199 (ITC April 23, 2020)
`Public Interest Comments of Nextera Healthcare, In the Matter of
`Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, No. 337-
`TA-1199 (ITC April 23, 2020)
`Public Interest Comments of the Progressive Policy Institute, In the
`Matter of Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof,
`No. 337-TA-1199 (ITC April 23, 2020)
`Public Interest Comments of the Reason Foundation, In the Matter of
`Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, No. 337-
`TA-1199 (ITC April 23, 2020)
`Public Interest Comments of the Schizophrenia and Related Disorder
`Alliance of America, In the Matter of Certain Tobacco Heating
`Articles and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1199 (ITC April 23,
`2020)
`Public Interest Comments of the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade
`Association, In the Matter of Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and
`Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1199 (ITC April 23, 2020)
`Public Interest Comments of Spark MD, In the Matter of Certain
`Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1199
`(ITC April 23, 2020)
`Public Interest Comments of TechFreedom, In the Matter of Certain
`Tobacco Heating Articles and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1199
`(ITC April 23, 2020)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Ex.
`1052
`
`1053
`
`Description
`FDA News release, FDA Authorizes Marketing of IQOS Tobacco
`Heating System with ‘Reduced Exposure’ Information (July 7, 2020),
`https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-
`authorizes-marketing-iqos-tobacco-heating-system-reduced-exposure-
`information
`FDA News release, FDA permits sale of IQOS Tobacco Heating
`System through premarket tobacco product application pathway (April
`30, 2019), https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-
`announcements/fda-permits-saleiqos-tobacco-heating-system-through-
`premarket-tobacco-product-application-pathway
`
`vii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`I.
`
`Section 325(d) Provides No Basis for a Discretionary Denial
`Analysis under either prong of the Advanced Bionics test reveals that
`discretionary denial is unwarranted. First, the Office was never presented with the
`arguments in the Petition, and Patent Owner buried the relevant art instead of
`presenting it to the Office. Certainly, applicants may present art in an IDS.
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate GMBH, IPR2019-
`01469, Paper 6 at 8 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). But here, Patent Owner hid the
`relevant art among over three hundred other references in an IDS (Ex. 1002 at
`148-60) and countless references cited in the patent. Patent Owner also ignored the
`Examiner’s plea to “specifically” identify “any particular reference or portion of a
`reference” in this “extremely large number of references.” Ex. 1002 at 142; Pet. 13
`(quoting). This is not presenting the Office with relevant art, this is hiding it.
`Second, even if burying art constitutes presenting it, the Examiner
`committed multiple errors “material to the patentability of the challenged claims.”
`Advanced Bionics at 8. To start, the Examiner compared the art to the wrong claim
`language when ostensibly finding the challenged claims contained allowable
`subject matter. After reciting claim elements that are not in any of this patent’s
`claims, the Examiner concluded that “the closest prior art” does not teach a clause
`that recites, inter alia, “wick[ing]” a liquid “into contact with the electrical
`resistance heater.” Ex. 1002 at 142-44. That clause is not in the challenged claims.
`Other than comparing the wrong art to the wrong claim language, the record is
`“silent,” and the Examiner therefore erred by “overlooking specific teachings of
`the relevant prior art” with respect to the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics at 8
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`n.9, 10. For example, the Examiner erred by failing to identify the teachings in
`Morgan, Adams, and Counts-962 regarding heaters positioned proximal to the
`center, and by not comparing those teachings to that claim feature. Amazon.com v.
`M2M Sols., IPR2019-01204, Paper 14 at 16-17 (Jan. 23, 2020). In fact, it is error to
`overlook relevant teachings even if other parts of the same reference were used to
`reject the claims. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. v. Mich. Motor Techs, IPR2020-00452,
`Paper 12 at 32-33 (Sept. 9, 2020). And until now, the Office has never been
`presented with the Petition’s arguments, expert testimony, and other supporting
`evidence showing that, e.g., positioning a heater proximal to the center was known
`and the many advantages of doing so. Accordingly, the Board should decline
`Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial under § 325(d).
`
`II. Discretionary Denial is Not Warranted under NHK/Fintiv
`A “holistic” evaluation reveals that institution furthers the Board’s
`considerations of “efficiency, fairness, and the merits.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). To begin,
`Petitioner was exceptionally diligent, filing its IPR on May 8, less than one month
`after April 9, when Patent Owner filed its complaints in the ITC and district court
`(“EDVA”), and before Petitioner answered/responded in either case. Exs. 1033,
`1034. In fact, Petitioner filed its IPR even before the ITC instituted its investigation
`on May 11. Ex. 2027. Nothing of substance occurred in the EDVA case before it
`was stayed on June 18, pending the ITC proceeding. Ex. 1035; see also Fintiv at
`11-12 (Petitioner’s diligence favors institution).
`The Board consistently grants institution even when the IPR was filed later
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`relative to the parallel ITC case because “the ITC does not have the power to
`cancel a patent claim,” 3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., IPR2020-00223, Paper 12, at
`33-34 (May 26, 2020), and “[t]he stay of the [district court] proceeding allays
`concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts as it relates to this
`proceeding. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Dynamics, IPR2020-00499, Paper 41 at 11-16
`(Aug. 12, 2020); Nichia Corp. v. Lighting Sci. Group Corp., IPR2019-01259,
`Paper 21 at 27-28 (Jan. 15, 2020) (instituting despite the “same claims … using the
`same prior art, the same arguments, and the same evidence”); Emerson Elec. Co. v.
`SIPCO, IPR2019-00547, Paper 15 at 9 (Aug. 30, 2019) (“[A]n ITC decision …
`may inform our decision, [but] it does not render our proceeding duplicative or …
`waste the Board’s resources.”). The Office is “the lead agency in assessing the
`patentability, or validity, of proposed or issued claims.” Certain Unmanned Aerial
`Vehicles and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1133 (Sept. 8, 2020) (suspending
`enforcement over the Board’s final written decisions) (Ex. 1039 at 37).
`Patent Owner cites only one case where the Board denied institution with a
`co-pending ITC case, Bio-Rad (POPR 61), but that case is inapposite. The Board
`denied institution in Bio-Rad because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits and delayed filing its IPR so long
`that the ITC had already issued a detailed final Initial Determination rejecting the
`same arguments challenging the same claims with the same art and the same expert
`witnesses. Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10x Genomics, IPR2019-00567, Paper 23 at 26-29
`(Aug. 8, 2019). Unlike Bio-Rad, Petitioner here diligently filed a meritorious
`petition applying different art, and did so just one month into the one-year statutory
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`period to ensure the Board may institute well before the ITC’s Initial
`Determination scheduled for May 14, 2021. Ex. 2029 at 4.
`As expected given Petitioner’s exceptional diligence, the Fintiv factors
`demonstrate that institution is warranted. First, the EDVA case is stayed (Fintiv
`factor 1). Contrary to Patent Owner’s unsupported attorney argument (POPR 62),
`the district court’s stay weighs strongly against denial even with a parallel ITC
`case. Samsung at 11-12 (“The stay of the [district court] proceeding allays
`concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts as it relates to this
`proceeding.”). If relevant at all, whether the ITC will stay the case is neutral
`because the Board will not speculate how a tribunal will rule. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv,
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (May 13, 2020) (informative) (“Fintiv II”).
`The lack of overlap between the ITC case and the IPR also favors institution.
`Fintiv at 9 & n.14 (pointing to Fintiv factor 4). Patent Owner alleged perfect
`overlap based on Petitioner’s preliminary infringement contentions. POPR 64.
`Petitioner, however, has chosen to litigate the IPR grounds at the PTAB: its final
`ITC contentions (Exs. 1036, 1037) do not raise the same grounds as the IPR. Apple
`Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2020-00202, Paper 11 at 17 (July 15, 2020) (evaluating
`final contentions instead of initial contentions) (“Maxell”). Counts-962 (Ground 3
`primary reference) is not asserted as prior art at all. Adams (Ground 2 primary
`reference) still appears in the ITC as a secondary reference, but only with different
`primary references (the Accord product and Hajaligol). This is a far cry from its
`role as a primary reference, as Patent Owner recognizes. Compare POPR 15-42
`(addressing Morgan in view of Adams) with 42-49 (Adams in view of Morgan);
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`Maxell at 14-18. The ITC proceeding also lacks the IPR’s Ground 1. While there is
`some overlap—both proceedings include Morgan as a primary reference—the
`proceedings use different secondary references, most notably Adams in the IPR
`and “bullet heater” prior art in the ITC (where its publication date was established
`via third-party subpoena, a procedure unavailable to prospective petitioners). Ex.
`1036 at 92-93; Ex. 1037. The IPR also uses a bullet-heater disclosure as evidence,
`but “supporting evidence” is not “prior art.” Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharms.,
`906 F.3d 1031, 1041-42 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`In addition to those significant differences, the ITC proceeding will involve
`different expert testimony and supporting evidence. These differences will be
`substantial, but Petitioner’s diligence makes it difficult, if not impossible, to fairly
`evaluate the amount of overlap at this early date. Patent Owner—who raised this
`issue and thus has the burden of proof—must demonstrate the amount of overlap,
`but it cannot do so by speculation. Fintiv at 5 (“When the patent owner raises an
`argument for discretionary denial under NHK….”); Zonar Sys. v. Innovative
`Global Sys., IPR2020-00154, Paper 16 at 12-13 (May 12, 2020) (declining to
`speculate regarding overlap). It would be contrary to Fintiv’s direction to consider
`“fairness” as part of a “holistic” analysis (Fintiv at 5-6) to penalize an
`exceptionally diligent petitioner for filing so early that the parties can only
`speculate regarding the relevant facts. Comcast Cable Commc’ns v. Veveo,
`IPR2019-00239, Paper 15 at 14 (July 5, 2019) (finding “insufficient persuasive
`evidence of overlap” even later in the ITC proceeding).
`Petitioners’ exceptional diligence also ensures there will be the minimum
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`possible investment in the ITC case (Fintiv factor 3), favoring institution. In
`Samsung, for example, the Board found this factor was neutral even though claim
`construction was complete, fact and expert discovery including expert depositions
`were complete, and summary determination motions were filed five months before
`the Board’s institution decision. See Samsung at 12-13. In contrast, the relevant
`investment at institution will be much less here: summary determination motions
`are not due until afterwards, and any investment in claim construction is irrelevant
`because no claim terms from the ’123 patent are at issue in the ITC. Ex. 2029 at 1-
`2; Ex. 1038.
`The strong merits and other relevant circumstances also favor institution.
`(Fintiv factor 6). Regarding the merits, the challenged claims are invalid under all
`three grounds, two of which Patent Owner barely disputes. Petitioner disagrees
`with all of Patent Owner’s arguments, but in view of the procedural posture,
`Petitioner makes only a single legal point: Patent Owner misstates the law when it
`insists that evidence, such as Exs. 1015, 1016, and 1020, must be prior-art printed
`publications. POPR 33-41; Yeda, 906 F.3d at 1041-42 (“[T]he Board can rely on
`evidence other than just prior art,” for example, as “evidence of motivation.”).
`In addition, other circumstances weigh against a discretionary denial. This is
`not a case where the petitioner will merely pay damages if it fails to prove
`invalidity by clear and convincing evidence and is found to infringe. The remedy
`for infringement at the ITC is an injunction that would deprive the public of a less
`harmful alternative to conventional cigarettes. “Following a rigorous science-based
`review,” the FDA “determined that authorizing [the accused IQOS product] for the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`U.S. market is appropriate for the protection of public health.” Ex. 1053; Ex. 1052
`(FDA finding that IQOS “significantly reduces the body’s exposure” to harmful
`chemicals). Indeed, IQOS is the only heat-not-burn or vaping device cleared by the
`FDA since the controlling statute was enacted over ten years ago, and public-
`interest groups have also expressed concern that removing IQOS from the U.S.
`market will be deleterious to public health. Ex. 1040 at 002; Exs. 1041-1051.
`The other Fintiv factors do not outweigh these positives. As usual, the
`Board’s final written decision is due after ITC’s scheduled target date (despite
`Petitioner’s exceptional diligence), but long before the district court will lift the
`stay and decide validity (Fintiv factor 2). Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, IPR2020-
`00506, Paper 11 at 9 n.6 (Sept. 1, 2020) (“holistically” weighing “factor 2 on a
`sliding scale” relative to the one-year bar) (“Seven”); Fintiv at 9 (factor 2
`addresses “the court’s trial date,” not a generic parallel proceeding or ITC); 28
`U.S.C. § 1659 (stay remains in place until ITC decision is final). The parties are
`the same (Fintiv factor 5), but this is usually the case and is therefore “neutral or
`weighing at most slightly in favor of denial.” Juniper Networks v. Packet
`Intelligence, IPR2020-00338, Paper 22 at 17 (Sept. 9, 2020); Seven at 15-16. And
`as demonstrated at the outset, the Board consistently institutes review despite an
`ongoing ITC case, even when the petitioner was far less diligent than the current
`case. Patent Owner has pointed to nothing that warrants departing from the Board’s
`well-established practice, including § 325(d), which was discussed above.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012)
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`Inge A. Osman (Reg. No. 74,480)
`inge.osman@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`Christopher W. Henry (Reg. No. 60,907)
`christopher.henry@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`Telephone: 617.948,6000
`Fax: 617.948.6001
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Philip Morris Products, S.A.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 18th day of September,
`
`2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to the Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response and all Exhibits were served by electronic mail on
`
`Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel at the following email addresses:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David M. Maiorana (Reg. No. 41,449)
`Kenneth S. Luchesi (Reg. No. 58,673)
`Jones Day
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Tel: 216.586.3939
`Fax: 216.579.0212
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`kluchesi@jonesday.com
`
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`Jones Day
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121-3134
`Tel: 858.314.1200
`Fax: 844.345.3178
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`Geoffrey K. Gavin (Reg. No. 47,591)
`Jones Day
`1420 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3053
`Tel: 404.521.3939
`Fax: 404.581.8330
`ggavin@jonesday.com
`
`Joshua R. Nightingale (Reg. No. 67,865)
`Jones Day
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00919 (USP 9,901,123)
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to POPR
`
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Philip Morris Products, S.A.
`
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2514
`Tel: 412.391.3939
`Fax: 412.394.7959
`Email: jrnightingale@jonesday.com
`
`
`George N. Phillips (Reg. No. 68,001)
`Jones Day
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, NY 10281-1047
`Tel: 212.326.3939
`Fax: 212.755.7306
`Email: gphillips@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
