`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Jeroen Poeze et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 10,588,553
`Issue Date:
`March 17, 2020
`Appl. Serial No.: 16/534,949
`Filing Date:
`August 7, 2019
`Title:
`MULTI-STREAM DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR
`NONINVASIVE MEASUREMENT OF BLOOD
`CONSTITUENTS
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE RANKING AND EXPLAINING MATERIAL
`DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,588,553
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Apple is filing two petitions (IPR2020-01536 and IPR2020-01537)
`
`challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,588,553 (the “’553 Patent”). Pursuant to the
`
`November 2019 Trial Practice Guide Update, this paper provides: “(1) a ranking of
`
`the petitions in the order in which [Petitioner] wishes the Board to consider the
`
`merits, if the Board uses its discretion to institute any of the petitions, and (2) a
`
`succinct explanation of the differences between the petitions, why the issues
`
`addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its
`
`discretion to institute additional petitions.” Trial Practice Guide, 59-61.
`
`I.
`
`Ranking of Petitions
`Although Apple believes that both petitions are meritorious and justified,
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board consider the petitions in the following order:
`
`Rank
`1
`2
`
`Petition
`IPR2020-01536
`IPR2020-01537
`
`Primary Reference
`Mendelson ’799
`Aizawa
`
`
`II. Considerations in Allowing Multiple Petitions Covering Different
`Grounds Where Patent Owner Has Asserted a Large Number of Claims
`Apple is a defendant in a pending infringement suit involving the ’553
`
`Patent, in addition to eleven other patents that are presently asserted. Although the
`
`District Court recently ordered the parties to submit “a joint proposal for an initial
`
`reduction of infringement contentions” by September 21, 2020, Patent Owner has
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`not yet narrowed the asserted claims. APPLE-1033, 1. As such, any of the ’553
`
`Patent’s 29 claims might potentially be asserted.
`
`Given the uncertainty of which claims will ultimately be asserted, Petitioner
`
`is forced to address all claims of the ’553 Patent in the present IPRs. If Petitioner
`
`were to leave some claims unaddressed, Patent Owner would be free to
`
`strategically tailor its final set of asserted claims in the Litigation to include claims
`
`left unaddressed in these IPRs. Petitioner attempted to fully address all 29 claims
`
`in a single petition, but was forced to split its arguments into two petitions due to
`
`word count constraints.
`
`Thus, the need for two Petitions is driven by uncertainty regarding which
`
`claims will ultimately be asserted in the Litigation. Patent Owner should not be
`
`allowed to hamper Apple’s ability to effectively use IPR as a defense by choosing
`
`to leave its assertion broad.
`
`III. Material Differences Between the Petitions
`Material differences exist. At bottom, the Petitions are non-redundant
`
`simply in their reliance on different combinations of references that address the
`
`claim elements in materially different ways. Although the combinations of
`
`references presented in each Petition render obvious the claims of the ’553 Patent,
`
`they do so in different ways, using different description.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01536 relies on Mendelson ’799 as its primary reference.
`
`Mendelson ’799 describes a pulse oximeter featuring a sensor housing 17 that
`
`accommodates a “light source 12 composed of three closely spaced light emitting
`
`elements (e.g., LEDs or laser sources)” and an array of twelve “discrete detectors
`
`(e.g., photodiodes).” APPLE-1012, Title, Abstract, 9:22-40, 10:16-37, FIGS. 7, 8.
`
`In contrast, the primary reference in IPR2020-01537 is Aizawa, which describes a
`
`pulse wave sensor featuring “four photodetectors” disposed around a central light
`
`source and a “holder” that secures the light source and photodetectors. APPLE-
`
`1006, ¶[0023]; FIGS. 1(a), 1(b).
`
`These distinct primary references, in combination with various secondary
`
`references, apply differently to the claims of the ’553 Patent. Additionally,
`
`motivation to combine the distinct sets of references presented in the two Petitions
`
`materially differs.
`
`In summary, the Petitions are not redundant, duplicative, or substantially
`
`similar. Each Petition provides a strong showing of unpatentability and/or
`
`obviousness, without repeating the same theory. Accordingly, Petitioner requests
`
`that the Board institute trial on both Petitions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 31, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /W. Karl Renner/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Andrew B. Patrick, Reg. No. 63,471
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the under-signed
`certifies that on August 31, 2020, a complete and entire copy of this Notice
`Ranking Petitions was provided via Federal Express, to the Patent Owner by
`serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`MASIMO CORPORATION (MASIMO)
`2040 MAIN STREET
`FOURTEENTH FLOOR
`IRVINE CA 92614
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
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
