·1· ·Proceedings:
`
`·2· ·Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2020-01138 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`·3· ·(U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186)
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2020-01139 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`·6· ·(U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186)
`
`·7
`
`·8· ·Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2020-01140 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`·9· ·(U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834)
`
`10
`
`11· ·Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2020-01142 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`12· ·(U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834)
`
`13
`
`14· · · · · · ·Held on Friday, November 13, 2020
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · ·2:00 p.m.
`
`16
`
`17· ·BEFORE:
`
`18· ·Judges:· Mitchell G. Weatherly; Michael L. Woods;
`
`19· ·Arthur M. Peslak
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Yita EX1037
`Yita v. MacNeil
`IPR2020-01138
`
`
`
`·2· ·Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2020-01138 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`·3· ·(U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186)
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2020-01139 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`·6· ·(U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186)
`
`·7
`
`·8· ·Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2020-01140 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`·9· ·(U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834)
`
`10
`
`11· ·Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2020-01142 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`12· ·(U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834)
`
`13
`
`14· · · · · · ·Held on Friday, November 13, 2020
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · ·2:00 p.m.
`
`16
`
`17· ·BEFORE:
`
`18· ·Judges:· Mitchell G. Weatherly; Michael L. Woods;
`
`19· ·Arthur M. Peslak
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Yita EX1037
`Yita v. MacNeil
`IPR2020-01138
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`·4· ·Lowe Graham Jones P.L.L.C.
`
`·5· ·BY:· · · ·Mark P. Walters, Esq.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·John J. Bamert, Esq.
`
`·7
`
`·8· ·Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`·9· ·BY:· · · ·Ralph W. Powers III, Esq.
`
`10· · · · · · ·Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Esq.
`
`11· · · · · · ·Steven A. Merrill, Esq.
`
`12
`
`13· ·Attorneys for Petitioner Patent Owner:
`
`14· ·Baker Botts LLP
`
`15· ·BY:· · · ·David G. Wille, Esq.
`
`16· · · · · · ·Chad C. Walters, Esq.
`
`17· · · · · · ·Clarke W. Stavinoha, Esq.
`
`18
`
`19· ·Perkins IP Law Group LLC
`
`20· ·BY:· · · ·Jefferson Perkins, Esq.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24· ·Reported by:· Estamarie Castelli-Velez
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Time noted: 2:03 p.m.)
`
`·2· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Good
`
`·3· · · · afternoon.· This is APJ Michael Woods and with
`
`·4· · · · me on the calls are APJs Weatherly and Peslak.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·We are here to discuss inter-party reviews
`
`·6· · · · 2020-01138-01139-01140-01142.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Will the representatives for the parties
`
`·8· · · · please introduce themselves beginning with the
`
`·9· · · · patent owner.· And please indicate whether
`
`10· · · · you've provided a court reporter for this call.
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
`12· · · · This is Chad Walters for patent owner and also
`
`13· · · · on the call are my colleagues David Wille and
`
`14· · · · Clarke Stavinoha.
`
`15· · · · · · ·We have not engaged a court reporter for
`
`16· · · · this call.
`
`17· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Thank
`
`18· · · · you, Mr. Walters.
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. FITZSIMMONS:· Good afternoon, Your
`
`20· · · · Honor.· This is Jason Fitzsimmons on behalf of
`
`21· · · · petitioner, Yita LLC, with the Sterne, Kessler,
`
`22· · · · Goldstein, and Fox and I'm joined by lead
`
`23· · · · counsel, Mark Walters from Lowe, Graham, Jones
`
`24· · · · and also Ralph W. Powers III Sterne Kessler who
`
`25· · · · is first backup counsel.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Your Honor we have arranged for a court
`
`·2· · · · reporter to be on the call.· She is on the call
`
`·3· · · · and we will a file a transcript as an exhibit
`
`·4· · · · in each of the proceedings once that's
`
`·5· · · · finalized.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:
`
`·7· · · · Perfect.· Thank you, Mr. Fitzsimmons.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·We understand that petitioner would like
`
`·9· · · · to file a reply to patent owners' preliminary
`
`10· · · · response in each of these four proceedings to
`
`11· · · · address, in part, alleged inaccurate statements
`
`12· · · · by the patent owner.
`
`13· · · · · · ·We also understand that the patent owner
`
`14· · · · opposes petitioner's request for additional
`
`15· · · · briefing.
`
`16· · · · · · ·Mr. Fitzsimmons, will you please explain
`
`17· · · · your position as to why we should grant your
`
`18· · · · request for additional briefing including how
`
`19· · · · many pages you're requesting and when you would
`
`20· · · · be able to file any such reply.
`
`21· · · · · · ·MR. FITZSIMMONS:· Yes, thank you, Your
`
`22· · · · Honor.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Just, for reference, again, as you
`
`24· · · · mentioned, there are four IPRs that are the
`
`25· · · · subject of today's call; IPR2020-01138, 1139,
`
`
`
`·1· · · · which relate to U.S. Patent 8,382,186; there's
`
`·2· · · · also IPR 2020-1140 and 1142 which relate to
`
`·3· · · · U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·But as it relates to the matters that
`
`·5· · · · we'll discuss today, Your Honors, we're
`
`·6· · · · actually going to be talking about those in
`
`·7· · · · different pairings.· The -1138 and 1140 are a
`
`·8· · · · pair and those are both based on the MacNeil
`
`·9· · · · ground that involves the priority dispute here
`
`10· · · · based on lack of written description.
`
`11· · · · · · ·And the second pair is the 1139 and 1142
`
`12· · · · IPRs that are both based on the Rabbe grounds
`
`13· · · · and involves a 325 D issue for everyone's
`
`14· · · · reference.
`
`15· · · · · · ·So, Your Honor, as a brief summary,
`
`16· · · · petitioner seeks 5-page replies in these
`
`17· · · · matters which could be filed within 5 business
`
`18· · · · days of an order granting to the patent owner
`
`19· · · · preliminary responses to answer your first
`
`20· · · · questions.
`
`21· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Thank
`
`22· · · · you, Mr. Fitzsimmons.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Mr. Chad Walters, will you please explain
`
`24· · · · your opposition to petitioners' request,
`
`25· · · · including whether you wish to file a surreply
`
`
`
`·1· · · · if we grant petitioners' request to file a
`
`·2· · · · reply.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· Yes, Your Honor, and I'll
`
`·4· · · · start with that question.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·To the extent that the board is inclined
`
`·6· · · · to grant a preliminary reply on any of these
`
`·7· · · · issues, we would like to file a surreply of the
`
`·8· · · · same length.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·The reason we opposed here is that this
`
`10· · · · standard here for preliminary reply is good
`
`11· · · · cause.· Good cause in these situations is
`
`12· · · · typically intervening case law such as a
`
`13· · · · federal circuit decision, or a decision being
`
`14· · · · made presidential by the board after the filing
`
`15· · · · of the petition or perhaps real party in
`
`16· · · · interest issued that were raised by the patent
`
`17· · · · owner, or something that is unforeseen.· And
`
`18· · · · with respect to each of these issues,
`
`19· · · · petitioner merely responded in our preliminary
`
`20· · · · patent owner response -- or excuse me -- patent
`
`21· · · · owner merely responded to our arguments that
`
`22· · · · were raised in the petition and these issues
`
`23· · · · and arguments were not unforeseeable and I can
`
`24· · · · take -- there are essentially four separate
`
`25· · · · issues here that I'd like to walk through.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·The first is with respect to the 1138 and
`
`·2· · · · 1140 IPRs in one of petitioners' requests is to
`
`·3· · · · file a reply addressing alleged inaccurate
`
`·4· · · · statements regarding support and priority
`
`·5· · · · documents.· This was certainly not patent
`
`·6· · · · owner's arguments were certainly not
`
`·7· · · · unforeseeable.· The petition argued that
`
`·8· · · · written description support was lacking for the
`
`·9· · · · claim and patent owner simply responded to this
`
`10· · · · assertion that there was no written description
`
`11· · · · support and there are numerous cases in
`
`12· · · · previous decisions by the board which denied
`
`13· · · · the ability to file a preliminary reply for
`
`14· · · · alleged misstatements.· One of those is the
`
`15· · · · Xactware decision.· It's IPR 2016 00593 at
`
`16· · · · paper 11.· In that decision, the board held
`
`17· · · · that identifying and evaluating misstatements
`
`18· · · · of facts and law are well within the purview of
`
`19· · · · the panel.· It may always be the case that a
`
`20· · · · petitioner is unhappy with how patent owner
`
`21· · · · characterizes the facts and law presented in
`
`22· · · · the petition.· And mere alleged misstatements
`
`23· · · · in a preliminary response do not give rise to
`
`24· · · · good cause.· That is all we have here on that
`
`25· · · · issue.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·With respect to the claim construction
`
`·2· · · · issue in the same IPR, so this is still the
`
`·3· · · · 1138 and 1140 IPRs, for this issue petitioner
`
`·4· · · · proposed the construction for a claim term.
`
`·5· · · · Patent owner proposed a different construction
`
`·6· · · · for essentially the same claim term.· That is
`
`·7· · · · certainly not something that is unforeseeable.
`
`·8· · · · There are numerous cases by the board on this
`
`·9· · · · issue with denied replies in this situation,
`
`10· · · · one of which is the Clorox company at IPR
`
`11· · · · 2016-00821 at paper 7 where the board held that
`
`12· · · · the board is capable of evaluating the parties'
`
`13· · · · proposed claim construction and we think that
`
`14· · · · the board is certainly capable of doing so here
`
`15· · · · without additional briefing.
`
`16· · · · · · ·There are other decisions that the board
`
`17· · · · has held similarly and I can provide citations
`
`18· · · · for those if the board is so inclined.
`
`19· · · · · · ·With respect to the other IPRs, so the
`
`20· · · · 1139 and the 1142, the first issue for which
`
`21· · · · petitioner as requested ability to file a reply
`
`22· · · · is on a 325 D issue that was raised in patent
`
`23· · · · owner's preliminary responses.· The 325 D,
`
`24· · · · again, is not a new issue.· Petitioner was
`
`25· · · · certainly on notice that consideration may be
`
`
`
`·1· · · · given to whether prior art or arguments present
`
`·2· · · · in the petition are the same or substantially
`
`·3· · · · the same as those raised in prosecution.· And
`
`·4· · · · in this case, petitioner actually raised 325 D
`
`·5· · · · in its petition and said that the art used in
`
`·6· · · · the petitions was not the same or substantially
`
`·7· · · · the same as that raised during prosecution.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·Patent owner merely responded to that
`
`·9· · · · argument and said it was incorrect and pointed
`
`10· · · · to references that were considered during
`
`11· · · · prosecution that are substantially the same or
`
`12· · · · cumulative as petitioner's primary reference in
`
`13· · · · those petitions.· Again, there's nothing
`
`14· · · · unforeseen here.· In the past, the board has
`
`15· · · · denied a preliminary reply on these issues.
`
`16· · · · The Merial decision at IPR 2018-00919 at paper
`
`17· · · · 11, the board held it because the prosecution
`
`18· · · · history of the challenged patent of record we
`
`19· · · · are capable of evaluating patent owner's
`
`20· · · · arguments related to 325 D and we certainly
`
`21· · · · think that this board is capable of doing the
`
`22· · · · same.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Finally, the last issue is another alleged
`
`24· · · · inaccurate statement in the 1139 and 1142 IPRs.
`
`25· · · · This is a statement regarding the Yung
`
`
`
`·1· · · · reference and thermoforming.· Petition included
`
`·2· · · · statements with respect to Yung and
`
`·3· · · · thermoforming within the petition.· Patent
`
`·4· · · · owner simply responded to these statements and
`
`·5· · · · there is nothing unforeseen here.· Again, in
`
`·6· · · · the Xactware case, mere alleged misstatements
`
`·7· · · · in preliminary response do not give rise to
`
`·8· · · · good cause.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·So, we don't see a good cause standard
`
`10· · · · being met for any of these issues with respect
`
`11· · · · to this request.
`
`12· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Thank
`
`13· · · · you, Mr. Walters.
`
`14· · · · · · ·Mr. Fitzsimmons, would you care to respond
`
`15· · · · to Mr. Chad Walters' explanation?
`
`16· · · · · · ·MR. FITZSIMMONS:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`17· · · · · · ·Regarding the first pairing of IPRs is
`
`18· · · · 2020-1138 and 1140, the MacNeil grounds.· I'd
`
`19· · · · like to provide three examples of some of the
`
`20· · · · inaccurate statements, Your Honor, that relate
`
`21· · · · to the priority issue that's made in the POPR.
`
`22· · · · This is first on POPR page 22, patent owner
`
`23· · · · says that the exact same language cannot
`
`24· · · · disclose this substantially uniform thickness
`
`25· · · · limitation in the MacNeil 748 patent and also
`
`
`
`·1· · · · not provide written description.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·Now, Your Honor, this is legally
`
`·3· · · · inaccurate as we said in our petition on page
`
`·4· · · · 30 with respect to the Tronzo case and also
`
`·5· · · · there's the Ariad case 598 f.3d at 1352 which
`
`·6· · · · also stands for the principle that the
`
`·7· · · · description that merely renders an invention
`
`·8· · · · obvious does not satisfy the written
`
`·9· · · · description requirement.· Secondly, in the POPR
`
`10· · · · page 23 this is referring to a block quote that
`
`11· · · · the patent owner says that the disclosure in
`
`12· · · · that block quote is present almost verbatim in
`
`13· · · · the 441 application all the way through the
`
`14· · · · chain 20186 patent.· Now, this language is not
`
`15· · · · almost verbatim, Your Honors, in the 441
`
`16· · · · application in the patent.· And it's very clear
`
`17· · · · if you look at the correspondence chart on page
`
`18· · · · 25 of the POPR, the disclosure in the MacNeil
`
`19· · · · 748 patent is not the same as what MacNeil
`
`20· · · · associates that with as providing support in
`
`21· · · · the 441 application.
`
`22· · · · · · ·Now, I note that the petition relied on
`
`23· · · · text in that MacNeil 748 patent that was not in
`
`24· · · · the priority application, particularly relating
`
`25· · · · to the thickness of the trays after
`
`
`
`·1· · · · thermoforming.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· Your Honor, this is Chad
`
`·3· · · · Walters.· May I interrupt just for a second
`
`·4· · · · here?
`
`·5· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Actual
`
`·6· · · · ly, no, I'd like to let Mr. Fitzsimmons, let's
`
`·7· · · · hear his explanation first and not interrupt
`
`·8· · · · him and then I'll give you an opportunity to
`
`·9· · · · respond.
`
`10· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· Can I just say that it
`
`11· · · · appears that they are entering their
`
`12· · · · substantive arguments in the record through
`
`13· · · · this call.
`
`14· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· We
`
`15· · · · wouldn't the transcript in this call as part of
`
`16· · · · the substantive record at least.· And to that
`
`17· · · · point, I don't know if -- I think he's instead
`
`18· · · · trying to explain why good cause exists.· So, I
`
`19· · · · understand there's somewhat of a gray area
`
`20· · · · here.
`
`21· · · · · · ·And also I think, Mr. Fitzsimmons,
`
`22· · · · Mr. Walters does make a fair point.· I think
`
`23· · · · getting too far into the weeds of the substance
`
`24· · · · isn't helpful for us in making this decision as
`
`25· · · · to whether to grant additional briefing.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MR. FITZSIMMONS:· Understood, Your Honor.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·The purpose of this is to explain why
`
`·3· · · · there is good cause, Your Honor.· We thought
`
`·4· · · · some examples would be helpful in this scenario
`
`·5· · · · as to why that would be.· I'll try to limit
`
`·6· · · · getting into the weeds as far as that's
`
`·7· · · · concerned.· But to some extent, it is necessary
`
`·8· · · · to show why there is good cause in this case.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·I'll wrap up with this one as a third
`
`10· · · · point.· In the POPR at page 26 to 27 there's a
`
`11· · · · statement that our expert relies on in his
`
`12· · · · declaration paragraph 169 it says that he
`
`13· · · · discusses figure 1 and this is an inaccurate
`
`14· · · · and misleading statement.· If you actually go
`
`15· · · · to that paragraph 168 in his declaration, he
`
`16· · · · doesn't discuss figure 1 at all in that or for
`
`17· · · · the entire element that's the sort of crux of
`
`18· · · · the priority dispute here down at 1J.
`
`19· · · · · · ·For this sort of written description,
`
`20· · · · priority issue, Your Honor, good cause exists
`
`21· · · · because whether or not the patents are entitled
`
`22· · · · to what's priority here is a threshold issue in
`
`23· · · · these matters and these assertions by the
`
`24· · · · patent owner were unforeseeable, getting to
`
`25· · · · that point.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·In the Sandoz v. AbbVie case, while the
`
`·2· · · · replies were denied there, the petitioner, the
`
`·3· · · · board found that the petitioner could've
`
`·4· · · · reasonably foreseen these arguments.· That's
`
`·5· · · · not the case here.· We could not have
`
`·6· · · · reasonably foreseen these inaccurate
`
`·7· · · · statements.· Again, that Sandoz case is IPR
`
`·8· · · · 2018-00002, that's paper 11.· Similarly, IPR
`
`·9· · · · 2016-00755, the board granted permission to
`
`10· · · · address a complex priority issue in a POPR
`
`11· · · · reply similar to here, that's the Apple v.
`
`12· · · · Personalized Media case.
`
`13· · · · · · ·So, on the related issue with these two
`
`14· · · · sort of first pairings of IPRs, again, that's
`
`15· · · · the -1138 and -1140 IPRs, sort of the claim
`
`16· · · · construction issue, Your Honors.· And so, good
`
`17· · · · cause here does exist for this issue as well
`
`18· · · · because petitioner could not have anticipated
`
`19· · · · patent owner's proposed construction here.· And
`
`20· · · · we did provide in the petitions our proposed
`
`21· · · · construction, but the claim construction has
`
`22· · · · not been addressed yet in the co-pending
`
`23· · · · district court case, so the specific
`
`24· · · · construction owner advance here by patent owner
`
`25· · · · is something that could not have been
`
`
`
`·1· · · · anticipated or foreseen as the case law does
`
`·2· · · · suggest here.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·And another example for petitioners'
`
`·4· · · · position here in the Ingenico v. Ioengine case,
`
`·5· · · · that's IPR 2019-00416 at paper 12 where the
`
`·6· · · · board did grant permission to file a reply
`
`·7· · · · should address the claim construction issue
`
`·8· · · · where that term was not construed by the
`
`·9· · · · parties in the district court litigation yet
`
`10· · · · and so petitioner was not on prior notice as is
`
`11· · · · the case here.
`
`12· · · · · · ·And I'd like to just briefly address the
`
`13· · · · second pair of petitions, the 1139 and 1142.
`
`14· · · · Those are the Rabbe grounds and specifically
`
`15· · · · the 325 D issue here.· So, as patent owner
`
`16· · · · mentioned, they raised this 325 D argument in
`
`17· · · · their POPR.· And here, the POPR admits that
`
`18· · · · these Wheaton and Oger references, they were
`
`19· · · · not applied in the prosecution of the patents
`
`20· · · · at issue here.· They're from other applications
`
`21· · · · that had a different examiner and were really
`
`22· · · · cited among approximately 150 other references.
`
`23· · · · So, again, petitioner could not have
`
`24· · · · anticipated that the patent owner would allege
`
`25· · · · Rabbe reference here.· The primary reference in
`
`
`
`·1· · · · these petitions would be cumulative would be
`
`·2· · · · two specific other references.· POPR is just an
`
`·3· · · · old field with many of the same features for
`
`·4· · · · decades.· The Wheaton and Oger references are
`
`·5· · · · actually from the 1960s.· While they do
`
`·6· · · · disclose many of the claimed elements in the
`
`·7· · · · patent, there's many references that disclose
`
`·8· · · · these basic elements of a patent, of the patent
`
`·9· · · · of a floor tray.· So, arguing that prior art
`
`10· · · · such as the Wheaton and Oger references
`
`11· · · · cumulative, here it's sort of a circular
`
`12· · · · argument.· In order to prove the
`
`13· · · · unpatentability of the claim, the petitioner
`
`14· · · · needs to show that the element of the claims
`
`15· · · · were in the prior art.· So, patent owner's
`
`16· · · · argument here is somewhat circular that there
`
`17· · · · are going to be lots of references that do
`
`18· · · · disclose a number of the limitations.· So,
`
`19· · · · there are distinctions here between Rabbe and
`
`20· · · · the Wheaton and Oger references that petitioner
`
`21· · · · would like to point out in its reply here.
`
`22· · · · · · ·So, again, good cause exists because
`
`23· · · · petitioner could not have anticipated these
`
`24· · · · specific references would have been asserted as
`
`25· · · · cumulative with the Rabbe reference here.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Additionally, I'll note that the Yung
`
`·2· · · · reference here clearly demonstrates that the
`
`·3· · · · examiner did err, as we pointed out in our
`
`·4· · · · petition at page 35, because it discloses
`
`·5· · · · precisely the claimed baffle feature that was
`
`·6· · · · the reasons for the examiners allowance.· So,
`
`·7· · · · in terms of 325 D, the board has found good
`
`·8· · · · cause for replies on this issue, for example,
`
`·9· · · · in IPR 2018-01194 paper 8 at the Reactive
`
`10· · · · Services v. Toyota IPR, also another example
`
`11· · · · IPR2018-00611 paper 9, that's the Samsung v.
`
`12· · · · UBE Industries case which supports additional
`
`13· · · · briefing with the assistance -- of assistance
`
`14· · · · of the board on 325 D argument.
`
`15· · · · · · ·And then, finally, Your Honor, I'll wrap
`
`16· · · · up by addressing the issue with Yung and its
`
`17· · · · thermoforming.· Petitioner argues that Yung
`
`18· · · · describes a compression molding of a
`
`19· · · · thermoformable material.· The basis of this,
`
`20· · · · Your Honor, is sent from one place in Yung
`
`21· · · · where the term embossed is used, that's in
`
`22· · · · claim 6 only, not in the specifications of
`
`23· · · · Yung.· And Yung does not discuss compression
`
`24· · · · molding at all.· What it does specifically
`
`25· · · · disclose is a thermoplastic material, namely
`
`
`
`·1· · · · polyethylene, which is thermoformable.· So,
`
`·2· · · · again, we dispute the technical teachings on
`
`·3· · · · this point.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·Petitioner would like to point out, if
`
`·5· · · · there's a dispute as to the technical teachings
`
`·6· · · · of what our reference discloses that, you know,
`
`·7· · · · according to 37 CFR42 108C, the genuine issues
`
`·8· · · · of the material fact should be viewed most
`
`·9· · · · favorable to the petitioner for the purpose of
`
`10· · · · instituting IPR, and that's an issue that
`
`11· · · · should be reserved for trial.
`
`12· · · · · · ·Petitioner believes there is good cause.
`
`13· · · · · · ·Thank you.· If you have any questions, I'd
`
`14· · · · be happy to answer them.
`
`15· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Thank
`
`16· · · · you for that explanation.
`
`17· · · · · · ·Mr. Chad Walters, would you like to
`
`18· · · · respond?
`
`19· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
`
`20· · · · I'll be very brief.
`
`21· · · · · · ·With respect to the first issue, the
`
`22· · · · alleged priority misstatements in the 1138 and
`
`23· · · · 1140 IPRs, I'm not -- I don't know what their
`
`24· · · · substantive arguments are for any of these.
`
`25· · · · This is the first that we're hearing them.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · I'll just note that from what I can tell
`
`·2· · · · everything that they pointed to as to why
`
`·3· · · · patent owner's statements were
`
`·4· · · · misrepresentations or inaccurate was something
`
`·5· · · · in the petition and declaration.· So, I
`
`·6· · · · certainly think the board is capable of
`
`·7· · · · evaluating the petition of the declaration with
`
`·8· · · · respect to patent owner's preliminary response
`
`·9· · · · and corresponding declaration to address that
`
`10· · · · issue.
`
`11· · · · · · ·With respect to the claim construction,
`
`12· · · · petitioners suggested that it was not on prior
`
`13· · · · notice, but this was actually a claim term that
`
`14· · · · petitioner proposed and patent owner merely
`
`15· · · · proposed a response for a different
`
`16· · · · construction of the term.
`
`17· · · · · · ·With respect to the 325 D, again, the
`
`18· · · · petition did anticipate this issue because it
`
`19· · · · came out in the outset and said that the
`
`20· · · · references were not the same or substantially
`
`21· · · · the same as art raised during prosecution and
`
`22· · · · patent owner simply responded to that argument
`
`23· · · · and pointed out why it was incorrect.
`
`24· · · · · · ·Again, not something that's not unforeseen
`
`25· · · · because they raised the issue.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Finally, again, on the alleged
`
`·2· · · · misstatements with respect to the Yung
`
`·3· · · · reference, this is also something that is
`
`·4· · · · certainly in the purview of the board to review
`
`·5· · · · the briefing and respond.· Petitioner made
`
`·6· · · · statements on the technology.· Patent owner
`
`·7· · · · responded to those statements.· And we do not
`
`·8· · · · believe that it's something unforeseen or
`
`·9· · · · something that warrants or satisfies the good
`
`10· · · · cause standard.
`
`11· · · · · · ·Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`12· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Thank
`
`13· · · · you, Mr. Walters.
`
`14· · · · · · ·Well, at this time, my colleagues and I
`
`15· · · · will convene in private.· If everyone would
`
`16· · · · please remain on the line and we'll reconvene
`
`17· · · · or return shortly.
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Whereupon, a short recess was
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · ·taken.)
`
`20· · · · · · ·Thank you for holding.· We have just
`
`21· · · · finished convening at this time.· And,
`
`22· · · · Mr. Walters, thank you for explaining the basis
`
`23· · · · for additional briefing should be in good cause
`
`24· · · · and we appreciate your citation to prior board
`
`25· · · · decisions that denied additional briefings, but
`
`
`
`·1· · · · we also understand that this is within the
`
`·2· · · · board's discretion and there are plenty of
`
`·3· · · · other cases in which the panels have granted
`
`·4· · · · additional briefings especially on issues such
`
`·5· · · · as 325 D and claim construction.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·With that, we will grant petitioners'
`
`·7· · · · request for additional briefing.· And so, we'll
`
`·8· · · · grant petitioner 5 pages of additional briefing
`
`·9· · · · due within 5 five businesses, which would be
`
`10· · · · next Friday.· And we'd like to also give patent
`
`11· · · · owner opportunity to file a surreply in
`
`12· · · · response to that reply of 5 pages also due
`
`13· · · · within 5 business days.· Keeping in mind that
`
`14· · · · in 2 weeks it's Thanksgiving, so assuming
`
`15· · · · that's a holiday that the patent owner was
`
`16· · · · planning on taking off, patent owner's surreply
`
`17· · · · would be due on Monday following Thanksgiving.
`
`18· · · · · · ·Mr. Walters, does that work with you or do
`
`19· · · · you have any questions?
`
`20· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· That's fine, Your Honor.
`
`21· · · · · · ·I have a question.· If petitioner filed
`
`22· · · · its reply earlier, is patent owners surreply
`
`23· · · · still due on the Monday after Thanksgiving?
`
`24· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS: I
`
`25· · · · think -- well, I personally draft orders in 5
`
`
`
`·1· · · · days after the filing of the reply brief as
`
`·2· · · · opposed to giving hard deadlines.· I don't know
`
`·3· · · · if it matters.· But if petitioner intended on
`
`·4· · · · filing it sooner, then we'd probably draft the
`
`·5· · · · order such that it would be due 5 days after
`
`·6· · · · the filing of the reply so the patent owner had
`
`·7· · · · the same amount of time as the petitioner in
`
`·8· · · · filing its brief.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·Am I missing something as to why?· Is
`
`10· · · · there some relevancy to that that I might be
`
`11· · · · missing?
`
`12· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· I just want to understand
`
`13· · · · what the holidays are specifically.· So, we can
`
`14· · · · certainly do it 5 business days after they file
`
`15· · · · their reply.· I just want to know what the
`
`16· · · · official holidays are.
`
`17· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Well,
`
`18· · · · let me ask Mr. Fitzsimmons.· So, you had asked
`
`19· · · · originally for 5 business days, which would be
`
`20· · · · next Friday.· Is that when you planned on
`
`21· · · · filing this brief?
`
`22· · · · · · ·MR. FITZSIMMONS:· Yes, I believe that's
`
`23· · · · correct, Your Honor.
`
`24· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· If Mr.
`
`25· · · · Fitzsimmons files it on that Friday, then, Mr.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Walters, your brief would be due, I believe, on
`
`·2· · · · the following Monday.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·Well, I can draft the order such that if
`
`·4· · · · Mr. Fitzsimmons decides to file it on Monday
`
`·5· · · · and then, in that instance, of course, I'll
`
`·6· · · · draft the order such that your reply is due 5
`
`·7· · · · days after.· It would be the following Monday
`
`·8· · · · before Thanksgiving.· If they file it on
`
`·9· · · · Thursday, which is Thanksgiving, then, Mr.
`
`10· · · · Walters, your reply wouldn't be due until
`
`11· · · · Friday after Thanksgiving.
`
`12· · · · · · ·Does that make sense?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· Yes, it does, Your Honor.
`
`14· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Also,
`
`15· · · · just for clarification, Mr. Fitzsimmons, we
`
`16· · · · understand that you'll file one brief in each
`
`17· · · · pair of cases that's 5 pages each, correct?
`
`18· · · · · · ·MR. FITZSIMMONS:· That's correct.· We
`
`19· · · · expect the substance, obviously, between the
`
`20· · · · pair of the cases to be very, very similar
`
`21· · · · between the sort of two pairings of cases.
`
`22· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· So, is
`
`23· · · · it your intent and it's our understanding that
`
`24· · · · you'll file one reply brief for the 1138 and
`
`25· · · · 1140 case and one reply brief for the 1139 and
`
`
`
`·1· · · · 1142 case?
`
`·2· · · · · · ·MR. FITZSIMMONS:· Yes, Your Honor, that's
`
`·3· · · · correct.· And citations may be different in
`
`·4· · · · them but the substance will be the same.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· Your Honor, this is patent
`
`·6· · · · owner, Chad Walters.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Can I just raise one more issue on the
`
`·8· · · · date?
`
`·9· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· Please
`
`10· · · · do.
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· If our surreply is due on
`
`12· · · · Friday, the 27, I would request that date be
`
`13· · · · moved to Monday, the 30 given travel time. I
`
`14· · · · personally will be traveling on the 27 and I
`
`15· · · · imagine our team will be out of the office on
`
`16· · · · that day as well.
`
`17· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· In
`
`18· · · · that instance, I'll just draft the order to be
`
`19· · · · due on November 30, Monday.
`
`20· · · · · · ·So, Mr. Fitzsimmons, for example, if you
`
`21· · · · wish to file your reply sooner because you're
`
`22· · · · going on vacation, then understand that
`
`23· · · · Mr. Walters will have until Monday the 30 to
`
`24· · · · file their surreply.· Thank you.
`
`25· · · · · · ·MR. FITZSIMMONS:· Understood, Your Honor,
`
`
`
`·1· · · · yes, we agree.
`
`·2· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:
`
`·3· · · · Mr. Fitzsimmons, do you have any final
`
`·4· · · · questions or concerns?
`
`·5· · · · · · ·MR. FITZSIMMONS:· No other questions, Your
`
`·6· · · · Honor.· Thank you for your time today.· We
`
`·7· · · · appreciate it.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE WOODS:· With
`
`·9· · · · that, we'll go ahead and conclude this call.
`
`10· · · · · · ·Thank you and have a good weekend.
`
`11· · · · · · ·MR. WALTERS:· Thank you.
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Time noted: 2:38 p.m.)
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T I O N
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · ·I, ESTAMARIE CASTELLI-VELEZ, a Shorthand
`
`·5· ·Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State
`
`·6· ·of New York, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a
`
`·7· ·true and accurate transcript to the best of my
`
`·8· ·knowledge and ability.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·I further certify that I am not related to
`
`10· ·any of the parties to this action by blood or by
`
`11· ·marriage and that I am in no way interested in the
`
`12· ·outcome of this matter.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · ·__________________________
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ESTAMARIE CASTELLI-VELEZ
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Proceedings
`November 13, 2020
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`13:10
`27
`3:1
`2:03
`
`
`Additionally 17:1
`address
`4:11 14:10
`
`15:7,12 19:9
`
`5:7 14:15
`
`
`
`addressed 14:22
`
`11:4
`30
`5:13 8:22,23 9:4,
`325
`20 15:15,16 17 7,14
`19:17
`35
`17:4
`
`18:7
`37
`
`
`4
`
`
`11:13,15121
`441
`
`
`5
`
`
`5:17
`5
`5:16
`5—page
`598
`11:5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8:11
`7
`10 25 11 19 23
`748
`
`'
`'
`’
`
`
`
`14:15
`
`
`0
`
`
`7:15
`
` 1
`
`13:13 16
`1
`1080
`18:7
`11
`7:16 9:17 14:8
`1138
`7
`1
`8 3 18 22
`-
`'
`-
`1139
`4:25 5:11 8:20
`9:24 15 13
`1140
`5:7 7:2 8:3
`10:18 18:23
`1142
`5:2,11 8:20 9:24
`15:13
`12
`15:5
`1352
`11:5
`150
`15:22
`168
`13:15
`169
`13:12
`1960s
`16:5
`1J
`13:18
`
`
`
`
`2016
`
`7:15
`
`2016-00755
`
`14:9
`
`8
`
`17:9
`
`
`
`addressing 7:3 17:16
`ADMINISTRATIVE 3:2,17
`4=6 5=21 10 12 12:5,
`14 18:15 20:12
`admits
`15:17
`advance
`14:24
`
`afternoon 3:3,11,19
`
`allege
`
`15:24
`
`alleged 4:11 7:3,14,
`22 9:23 10:6 18:22
`20:1
`17:6
`allowance
`1
`:1
`'
`'
`8
`9
`ant1°1pate
`anticipated 14:18
`15:1,24 16:23
`APJ 3.3
`'
`3=4
`APJS
`12:11
`appears
`14:11
`Apple
`application 11:13,16,
`21(24'tI
`15 20
`app 1ca ions
`.
`applied :5119 15.22
`approx1ma e y
`.
`area
`12:19
`argued 7:7
`argues
`17:17
`
`arguing 16:9
`
`9:9 15:16
`argument
`16:12,16 17:14 19:22
`
`6:21,23 7:6
`arguments
`9 1,20 12:12 14:4
`18:24
`Ariad
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
