`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01031 and IPR2020-01032
`U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`________________________
`PETITIONERS’ EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NECESSITY FOR
`MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners have filed two petitions challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`to Tsao (“the 254 Patent”), both of which are based on the same prior art and
`
`include substantive identical analysis. Two petitions were required because the
`
`analysis of all 20 claims of the 254 Patent could not reasonably fit within the word
`
`limit for a single petition. In considering how best to divide the analysis between
`
`the petitions, Petitioners determined that addressing claims 1 and 16 and their
`
`dependents in one petition, and claim 9 and its dependent claims in a separate
`
`petition, was the most efficient path forward.
`
`
`
`The Board has found that a Petitioner may file multiple petitions against a
`
`single patent when, for example, the asserted claims in the litigation are uncertain
`
`and where petitions rely on the same prior art. See, e.g., Microsoft Corporation v.
`
`IPA Technologies Inc., IPR2019-00810, Paper 12 at 11-16 (October 16, 2019).
`
`The Board further observed that “any duplication of effort that may place
`
`unnecessary burdens on the parties and the Board may be avoided or reduced by
`
`consolidating the instituted IPRs (if institution of review is granted in more than
`
`one proceeding), including consolidating the parties’ briefing, motion practice, and
`
`the oral hearings. Id. at 15.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners made this decision to file two petitions given the length of the
`
`claims and its assessment it could not reasonably fits its analysis in fewer petitions,
`
`and based on certain distinctions between the scope of claim 9 and the scope of
`
`claims 1 and 16. For example, claim 9 is generally directed to “a server,” while
`
`claims 1 and 16 are directed to a “wireless device” and “method for a wireless
`
`device,” respectively. By analyzing the most similar independent and dependent
`
`claims in separate petitions, Petitioners have presented the analysis in the most
`
`efficient manner while maintaining appropriate word count limits.
`
`
`
`In addition, Petitioners have challenged all 20 claims of the 254 Patent
`
`because they did not know, at the time, which claims would be asserted against
`
`Petitioner HP Inc. (“HP”) in district court. For example, HP was served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the 254 Patent on July 22, 2019. The complaint
`
`asserts that HP infringes “at least claim 1.” Thus, HP does not know which claims,
`
`other than claim 1, Patent Owner will assert against it in district court litigation,
`
`thus supporting the need to challenge all the claims of the 254 patent. See, e.g., id.
`
`at 14 (finding that Petitioner had provided “a reasoned explanation” for filing
`
`multiple petitions where Petitioner was “in the position of not knowing which
`
`claims…Patent Owner would assert against Petitioner in district court litigation.”)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, pursuant to the Trial Practice Guide recommendations, Petitioners
`
`identify the following sections as the sections that are substantively identical across
`
`the two petitions, noting that claims 1, 9 and 16 are the independent claims of the
`
`254 Patent:
`
`IPR2020-01031
`
`Introduction
`
`IPR2020-01032
`
`Introduction
`
`Compliance with the Requirements for
`a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The 254 Patent
`
`Compliance with the Requirements for
`a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The 254 Patent
`
`Principal Prior Art
`
`Patentability Analysis
`A. 1. Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20
`B. 1. Claims 4 and 18
`C. 1. Claim 8
`
`Principal Prior Art
`
`Patentability Analysis
`A. 1. Claim 14
`B. 1. Claim 12
`C. 1. Claim 15
`
`Finally, Petitioners recognize that the recent amendments to the Trial
`
`
`
`
`
`Practice Guide state that a petitioner filing multiple petitions against the same
`
`patent “should” identify “a ranking of the petitions in order in which [the
`
`petitioner] wishes the Board to consider the merits. See pg. 27. Petitioners
`
`respectfully suggest that doing so here would be somewhat anomalous. This is not
`
`a situation where the petitions challenge the same claims on different prior art
`
`bases. The basic prior art analysis of the independent claims is identical in both
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`petitions. Thus, a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses between the two
`
`petitions, which would be necessary to determine a preference, would seem to be a
`
`nonsensical exercise.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, given the structure of the claims of the 254 Patent, and the
`
`differences in claims addressed in IPR2020-01031 and IPR2020-01032, Petitioners
`
`respectfully requests that the Board consider and institute Inter Partes reviews on
`
`both petitions. Nevertheless, to the extent the Board deems it necessary to only
`
`consider a single petition, Petitioners rank IPR2020-01031 ahead of IPR2020-
`
`01032.
`
`Dated: June 4, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 4, 2020, a copy of the Petitioners’ Explanation
`
`Regarding The Necessity For Multiple Petitions, and exhibits thereto, has been
`
`served in its entirety on the patent owner and counsel for patent owner, via Federal
`
`Express, at the following:
`
`Sheng Tai (Ted) Tsao
`3906 Borgo Common.
`Fremont, CA 94538
`
`Synkloud Technologies, LLC
`124 Broadkill Road, #415
`Milton, DE 19968
`
`David S. Eagle
`Sean M. Brennecke
`919 Market Street, Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`Dated: June 4, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`5
`
`