`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00255
`Patent 10,298,451
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00255
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0020IP1
`In its Preliminary Response (Paper 6), Koss argues that factor 4 of the Fintiv
`
`framework “weighs in favor of denying institution” based on an alleged “potential”
`
`overlap of issues because “Petitioner challenges the validity of all of the claims in
`
`the ’451 Patent in both the Petition and the Texas Litigation.” Paper 6, 14, 16.
`
`However, Fintiv explains that Factor 4 addresses whether “the petition includes the
`
`same or substantially the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence as
`
`presented in the parallel proceeding.” IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 12. Each of
`
`these elements either differs between the concurrent proceedings or any overlap is
`
`unascertainable until well after institution, as follows.
`
`First, there is no overlap of grounds. Apple has stipulated that, unless the
`
`Board denies or later vacates institution of this petition, Petitioner will not seek
`
`resolution in the district court trial of invalidity based on any ground “that utilizes,
`
`as a primary reference, [Brown], which is the primary reference in the grounds
`
`asserted in” this IPR. KOSS-2009, 2. As grounds will differ, necessarily will
`
`arguments and evidence. Second, the parties will not decide on the claims that will
`
`be at issue in the district court trial until January, 2022. Paper 6, 14. Thus, as Koss
`
`acknowledges, “the extent of duplicative effort required by the Board will not be
`
`clear until well into the one-year period that is statutorily afforded the Board to
`
`issue its final written decision.” Id. Thus, factor 4 supports institution.
`
`Koss challenges the stipulation as not broad enough to preclude overlap.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00255
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0020IP1
`Paper 6, 15-16. But, as described above, this is simply not true. While the
`
`stipulation may not necessarily include “all permutations of the asserted prior art,”
`
`the stipulation sufficiently “reduces the risks posed by the overlap between the
`
`proceedings,” such that factor 4 of Fintiv “weighs against the exercise of discretion
`
`to deny review.” IPR2020-01113, Paper 12, 15-19. For at least similar reasons,
`
`Apple’s stipulation weighs against the exercise of discretionary denial.
`
`Koss makes the argument that because a petitioner in a different IPR
`
`proceeding issued a broader stipulation, Apple should do so here. That is not what
`
`the Board has required. Indeed, such a one-size-fits-all rule is counter to Fintiv’s
`
`guidance. When evaluating the Fintiv factors, “the Board takes a holistic view of
`
`whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or
`
`instituting review,” and, “[i]n many cases, weighing the degree of overlap is highly
`
`fact dependent” IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 6, 13. There are numerous cases
`
`where the Board has rightly found that stipulations of equal or narrower breadth
`
`weigh against discretionary denial. See, e.g., IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, 11-12;
`
`IPR2020-01113, Paper 12, 15-19; IPR2020-01208, Paper 13, 18; IPR2020-01428,
`
`Paper 10, 12. And where the Board has held otherwise, there were often other
`
`mitigating facts, such as a much sooner and more certain trial date. See, e.g.,
`
`IPR2020-00870, Paper 16, 9-18; IPR2020-01317, Paper 15, 11-24. A similarly
`
`holistic analysis of the present facts weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`March 26, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Date:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00255
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0020IP1
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/W. Karl Renner/
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Roberto Devoto, Reg. No. 55,108
`Ryan Chowdhury, Reg. No. 74,466
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00255
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0020IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on March 26,
`
`2021, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response was provided via email, to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Mark G. Knedeisen
`Laurén Shuttleworth Murray
`Brian P. Bozzo
`K&L GATES LLP
`K&L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`
`Email: mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`Email: lauren.murray@klgates.com
`Email: brian.bozzo@klgates.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`