`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT and
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC and THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owners.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`Patent 7,104,347
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ IDENTIFICATION OF NEW EVIDENCE AND
`ARGUMENTS BEYOND THE PROPER SCOPE OF PETITIONERS’
`REPLY
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 36351-0004IP1
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`PAICE 2001
`
`PAICE 2002
`
`PAICE 2003
`
`PAICE 2004
`
`PAICE 2005
`PAICE 2006
`
`PAICE 2007
`PAICE 2008
`PAICE 2009
`
`PAICE 2010
`PAICE 2011
`PAICE 2012
`PAICE 2013
`PAICE 2014
`PAICE 2015
`PAICE 2016
`PAICE 2017
`PAICE 2018
`PAICE 2019
`
`PAICE 2020
`
`Description
`Patent Owners’ Preliminary Response to Petition for IPR in
`IPR2014-00571 Dated July 11, 2014
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition in IPR2014-00884
`dated March 10, 2015
`Decision on Institution in IPR2015-00794 dated November 2,
`2015
`Decision on Institution in IPR2015-00795 dated November 2,
`2015
`Petition for IPR in IPR2014-00571 dated April 4, 2014
`Response to Interrogatory 27, BMW Responses to PAICE 1st
`Set of Interrogatories [1-28] dated May 6, 2020
`Paice/Toyota Complaint dated June 8, 2004
`Paice/Toyota Amended Complaint dated July 3, 2007
`Scheduling Order [Docket No. 36] from 1:19-cv-03348-SAG
`(USDC-DMD) dated February 25, 2020
`Docket Navigator Statistics – Top Patents by Number of IPRs
`Ex. E to BMW Invalidity Contentions dated June 8, 2020
`Ex. C to BMW Invalidity Contentions dated June 8, 2020
`IPR2017-00226 Petition dated November 14, 2016
`UK Patent Application GB 2,318,105 Cover Page
`Printout of http://www.paicehybrid.com/licensing-agreements/
`Declaration of Mahdi Shahbakhti, Ph.D.
`Curriculum Vitae of Mahdi Shahbakhti, Ph.D.
`Bosch Gasoline-engine Management
`Selected Pages From John Heywood, Internal Combustion
`Engines Fundamentals
`Selected Pages From Merhdad Ehsani et al, Modern Electric,
`Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles
`PAICE 2021 Matthew Cuddy et al., Analysis of the Fuel Economy Benefit
`of Drivetrain Hybridization
`Selected Pages From Draft Technical Assessment Report:
`Midterm Evaluation of Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
`Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
`Standards for Model Years 2022-2025
`Selected Pages From Assessment of Fuel Economy of Fuel
`Economy Technologies for Light Duty Vehicles
`
`PAICE 2022
`
`PAICE 2023
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`PAICE 2024
`
`PAICE 2025
`PAICE 2026
`
`PAICE 2027
`
`PAICE 2028
`
`Attorney Docket: 36351-0004IP1
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`Selected Pages From Richard Stone, Introduction to Internal
`Combustion Engines
`Heinz Heisler, Advanced Vehicle Technology, SAE
`Hitoshi Inoue et al., A Performance Improvement in Idle-Speed
`Control System with Feedforward Compensation for the
`Alternator Load Current, SAE
`Satoru Watanabe, Development of Model-Following Idle
`Speed Control System Incorporating Engine Torque Models,
`SAE
`Guzzella et al., Introduction to Modeling Control of Internal
`Combustion Engine Systems
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 36351-0004IP1
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Pursuant to Paper 30, Patent Owners identify the following arguments and/or
`
`evidence filed with the Petitioner Reply that is beyond the proper scope of the
`
`Reply.1
`
`A. New Arguments and Evidence Regarding Graf (Grounds 1a, 2a,
`and 4a; Claims 2 and 24)
`
`Ex. 1090 is new evidence not presented in BMW’s Petition. BMW’s reply
`
`relies on Ex. 1090 (a translation of foreign patent EP 0,576,703) to argue that Graf
`
`discloses “monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time.” Reply, 13. Graf
`
`explicitly references Ex. 1090 in its specification, but BMW did not submit Ex.
`
`1090 or make any arguments concerning its disclosure or relevance to Graf in its
`
`Petition.
`
`BMW’s arguments at Section III.A of its reply focus primarily on the
`
`disclosure of Ex. 1090, which was not included in BMW’s Petition. BMW’s
`
`reliance on Ex. 1090 to supplement the disclosure of Graf included in the Petition
`
`is new argument. Likewise, paragraphs 67-68 of Dr. Davis’s reply declaration (Ex.
`
`1088) consist of new opinions relying on Ex. 1090 to supplement his opinions
`
`about Graf’s disclosure.
`
`
`1 Patent Owners reserve the right to address in their Sur-reply other new/improper
`
`arguments and evidence contained in BMW’s Reply.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 36351-0004IP1
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`B. New Arguments and Evidence Regarding the Severinsky and Nii
`Combination (Grounds 3a and 3b; Claims 2 and 24)
`
`BMW’s assertions that “Severinsky’s speed-based thresholds correlate to
`
`torque-based thresholds” and “‘speed thresholds’ are also torque thresholds by
`
`their very nature” (Reply, 9-10) are new arguments. BMW’s Petition relied on
`
`“speed thresholds (Petition, 20), but did not explain any relationship between
`
`“speed thresholds” and “torque thresholds.” Likewise, paragraphs 9-26 of Dr.
`
`Davis’s reply declaration (Ex. 1088) consist of new opinions making the same
`
`argument about the purported relationship between “speed thresholds” and “torque
`
`thresholds.” In addition, Dr. Davis relies on Bumby II (Ex. 1015), an SAE paper
`
`(Ex. 1091), and the Ehsani textbook (Ex. 1092) in attempt to support this
`
`argument. Ex. 1088, ¶¶ 14-22. Neither BMW nor Dr. Davis reference or discuss
`
`Ex. 1015, Ex. 1091, or Ex. 1092 in support of these grounds in BMW’s Petition.
`
`C. New Arguments/Evidence Regarding the Severinsky and Ehsani
`Combination (Ground 4c; Claim 17)
`
`BMW’s assertions in Section V.A. of its Reply that Severinsky’s four-wheel
`
`drive requires additional components to function and that Ehsani’s “simpler”
`
`solution provides a reason to combine constitute new arguments that BMW could
`
`have presented in its Petition but did not. Reply, 24-26.
`
`Dr. Davis’s opinions at paragraphs 111-119 of his reply declaration (Ex.
`
`1088) repeat the same arguments and are likewise new arguments that could have
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`been made with the Petition. In addition, Dr. Davis relies on an automotive
`
`Attorney Docket: 36351-0004IP1
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`handbook (Ex. 1095) and an automotive dictionary (Ex. 1096) to argue that
`
`Severinsky’s four-wheel drive system is incomplete. Ex. 1088, ¶¶ 111-13. Neither
`
`BMW nor Dr. Davis reference or discuss Ex. 1095 or Ex. 1096 in support of
`
`BMW’s Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (877) 769-7945
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Brian J. Livedalen/
`Ruffin B. Cordell, Reg. No. 33,487
`Timothy W. Riffe, Reg. No. 43,881
`Brian J. Livedalen, Reg. No. 67,450
`
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owners
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 36351-0004IP1
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on June 9, 2021,
`
`a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owners’ Identification of New
`
`Arguments and Evidence Beyond the Proper Scope of Petitioners’ Reply was
`
`provided via email, to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence address of
`
`record as follows:
`
`Jeffrey D. Sanok
`Vincent J. Galluzzo
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004-2595
`
`Scott L. Bittman
`Jacob Z. Zambrzycki
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`590 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10022-2544
`
`Email: jsanok@crowell.com
`Email: vgalluzzo@crowell.com
`Email: sbittman@crowell.com
`Email: jzambrzycki@crowell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`