`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. IPR2020-01269 and IPR2020-01270
`U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`________________________
`PETITIONERS’ EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NECESSITY FOR
`MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners have filed two petitions challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780 to
`
`Tsao (“the 780 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 780 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 “a system,” 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 780 Patent
`
`because they do not know which claims (if any) might be asserted against
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Inc. (“Microsoft”) in district court. For example, Microsoft
`
`filed for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the 780 Patent in district
`
`court on January 3, 2020 and at present, only an exemplary claim has been
`
`identified. 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.”)
`
`Further, pursuant to the Trial Practice Guide recommendations, Petitioners
`
`identify the following sections as the sections that are substantively identical across
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`the two petitions, noting that claims 1, 9 and 16 are the independent claims of the
`
`254 Patent:
`
`IPR2020-01269
`
`Introduction
`
`IPR2020-01270
`
`Introduction
`
`Compliance with the Requirements for
`a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The 780 Patent
`
`Compliance with the Requirements for
`a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The 780 Patent
`
`Principal Prior Art
`
`Patentability Analysis
`A. Claim 2
`B. Claims 5 and 6
`C. Claims 3 and 17
`D. Claim 4
`
`Principal Prior Art
`
`Patentability Analysis
`A. Claim 15
`B. Claim 14
`C. Claim 10
`D. Claim 11
`
`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
`
`petitions. Thus, a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses between the two
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`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 780 Patent, and the
`
`differences in claims addressed in IPR2020-01269 and IPR2020-01270, Petitioners
`
`respectfully request 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 IPR2020-01269 ahead of IPR2020-
`
`01270.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 20, 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 July 20, 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: July 20, 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
`
`