`
`June 17, 2020
`
`David Willingham
`Jeanne A. Fugate
`Zi Wei Hu
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`725 S. Figuora St., 31st Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street, NE
`21st Floor
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`404 892 5005 main
`404 892 5002 fax
`
`Anand Sharma
`Raj Gupta
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRET & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`Max Gianelli
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRET & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`
`Re: UPL NA Inc. v. Tide Int’l (USA), Inc. et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-1201-RSWL-KS
`
`UPL Counsel:
`
`I write regarding the pending litigation in the above-captioned case regarding U.S. Patent No.
`7,473,685. On June 17, 2020, Tide filed a petition for inter partes review against the ’685
`patent. Tide hereby stipulates that, if Tide’s petition is instituted, Tide will not challenge the
`validity of the ’685 patent in this litigation based on the following grounds being advanced in the
`IPR petition:
`
`’685 Patent Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`§ 103 over Misselbrook and CN ’588 in view
`of JP ’902
`
`§ 103 over Misselbrook and Mayer in view of
`CN ’588
`
`§ 103 over Misselbrook and JP ’902 in view of
`Mayer
`
`Ground
`
`Ground 1
`
`1-4, 7-12
`
`Ground 2
`
`1-4, 7-12
`
`Ground 3
`
`1-4, 7-12
`
`Misselbrook refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,387,388; CN ’588 refers to Chinese Patent Publication
`No. 1127588A; JP ’902 refers to Japanese Patent Publication No. 9-315902A, and Mayer refers to
`U.S. Patent No. 6,030,924.
`
`1
`
`TIDE 1035
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 17, 2020
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`Tide also stipulates it will not pursue in the litigation any ground that utilizes, as a primary
`reference, Misselbrook, which is a primary reference in the grounds asserted in the IPR petition,
`or Lescota, which is a divisional application of Misselbrook.
`
`In so stipulating, Tide seeks to avoid duplicative efforts and multiple proceedings addressing the
`validity of the ’685 patent based on grounds having the same primary references. Rather, Tide
`expresses its intent to have the PTAB exclusively address the patentability of the ’685 patent on
`such grounds should an IPR proceeding be instituted.
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Thad Kodish
`
`Thad Kodish
`Attorney for Tide Defendants
`
`
`
`2
`
`