Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`BOSE CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 10,368,155
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ......................................................................... xvi
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................. xvi
`
`Related Matters – § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................................... xvi
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office .............................. xvi
`
`United States District Court for
`the Western District of Texas ................................................ xvii
`
`Counsel and Service Information – § 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4) ............ xvii
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF STANDING ............................................................... 4
`
`IV. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ................................................................ 4
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’155 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Summary of the Challenged Claims ..................................................... 7
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 8
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’155 Patent ........................................................................... 8
`
`Earlier History ............................................................................. 9
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Before the ’155 Patent, Koss Exclusively Claimed
`the Ability to “Transition Automatically” from an
`Ad Hoc Network to an Infrastructure Network
`When Out of Range of the Ad Hoc Network .................. 9
`
`The EPO Found, and Koss Conceded, that Rezvani
`Discloses the “Transition Automatically” Limitation ... 10
`
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION .......................................................................11
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`VII. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ..............................................................11
`
` Ground 1: Pelland Renders All Challenged Claims Unpatentable .....11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Legal Standards .........................................................................11
`
`Absent Priority, Pelland Is Prior Art .........................................12
`
`Priority Is Lacking Since the Priority Applications Fail
`to Support the “Transition Automatically” Limitation .............12
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Priority Applications Only Disclose
`Transition Due to Lost Connection ............................... 13
`
`The Priority Applications Only Disclose Transition
`Between Ad Hoc and Infrastructure Networks ............. 15
`
`All Challenged Claims Lack Priority ............................ 16
`
`4.
`
`Pelland Anticipates All Challenged Claims..............................17
`
`
`
`Grounds 2A-2E: All Challenged Claims Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Rezvani in View of Other References .........................24
`
`1.
`
`Ground 2A: Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 14 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Rezvani in View of Skulley .....................25
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Rezvani .......................................................................... 25
`
`Skulley ........................................................................... 27
`
`The Rezvani-Skulley Combination ............................... 28
`
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 29
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`[1.a] A wireless headphone
`assembly comprising: .......................................... 29
`
`[1.b] first and second earphones, wherein
`each of the first and second earphones
`comprises an acoustic transducer; ....................... 30
`
`(3)
`
`[1.c] an antenna for receiving wireless signals; .. 31
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`(7)
`
`[1.d] a wireless communication circuit
`connected to the antenna, wherein the
`wireless communication circuit is for receiving
`and transmitting wireless signals to and
`from the wireless headphone assembly; .............. 32
`
`[1.e] a processor in communication with
`the wireless communication circuit; and ............. 33
`
`[1.f] a rechargeable battery for powering
`the wireless headphone assembly, ....................... 34
`
`[1.g] wherein the headphone assembly
`is configured, with the processor, to
`transition automatically from playing
`digital audio content received wirelessly by
`the headphone assembly via a first wireless
`network to playing digital audio content
`received wirelessly by the headphone
`assembly via a second wireless network ............. 35
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 37
`
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 38
`
`Headphone Design Claims ............................................ 40
`
`(1) Claim 4 ................................................................ 41
`
`(2) Claims 6-8 ........................................................... 41
`
`h.
`
`Claim 14 ......................................................................... 42
`
`2.
`
`Ground 2B: Claims 11-12 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Rezvani, Skulley and Feder ...............................43
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Feder .............................................................................. 43
`
`The Rezvani-Skulley-Feder Combination ..................... 44
`
`Claims 11-12 .................................................................. 45
`
`– iii –
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Ground 2C: Claim 13 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Rezvani, Skulley and Hind ................................45
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Hind ............................................................................... 46
`
`The Rezvani-Skulley-Hind Combination ...................... 46
`
`Claim 13 ......................................................................... 48
`
`4.
`
`Ground 2D: Claims 5 and 9 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Rezvani, Skulley and Rosener ...........................48
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Rosener .......................................................................... 49
`
`The Rezvani-Skulley-Rosener Combination ................. 51
`
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 9 ........................................................................... 52
`
`5.
`
`Ground 2E: Claim 10 Would Have Been
`Obvious Over Rezvani, Skulley and Wilson ............................54
`
`a. Wilson ............................................................................ 54
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Rezvani-Skulley-Wilson Combination .................. 55
`
`Claim 10 ......................................................................... 56
`
`
`
`Grounds 3A-3D: Challenged Claims 1-10 and 13-14 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Nakagawa in View of Other References ............56
`
`1.
`
`Ground 3A: Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10 and 14 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Nakagawa in View of Wilson ..................57
`
`a.
`
`Nakagawa ...................................................................... 57
`
`b. Wilson ............................................................................ 60
`
`c.
`
`The Nakagawa-Wilson Combination ............................ 60
`
`
`
`– iv –
`
`

`

`d.
`
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 63
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`(7)
`
`[1.a] 1. A wireless headphone
`assembly comprising: .......................................... 63
`
`[1.b] first and second earphones, wherein
`each of the first and second earphones
`comprises an acoustic transducer; ....................... 63
`
`[1.c] an antenna for receiving wireless signals; .. 64
`
`[1.d] a wireless communication circuit
`connected to the antenna, wherein the
`wireless communication circuit is for receiving
`and transmitting wireless signals to and
`from the wireless headphone assembly; .............. 64
`
`[1.e] a processor in communication with
`the wireless communication circuit; and ............. 65
`
`[1.f] a rechargeable battery for powering
`the wireless headphone assembly, ....................... 66
`
`[1.g] wherein the headphone assembly
`is configured, with the processor, to
`transition automatically from playing
`digital audio content received wirelessly by
`the headphone assembly via a first wireless
`network to playing digital audio content
`received wirelessly by the headphone
`assembly via a second wireless network ............. 66
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 68
`
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 69
`
`Claims 6-8 ...................................................................... 71
`
`Claim 10 ......................................................................... 72
`
`Claim 14 ......................................................................... 73
`
`– v –
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Ground 3B: Claims 1, 4-5 and 9 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Nakagawa in View of Rosener ................74
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Nakagawa ...................................................................... 74
`
`Rosener .......................................................................... 75
`
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 76
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`[1.a] A wireless headphone
`assembly comprising: .......................................... 76
`
`[1.b] first and second earphones, wherein
`each of the first and second earphones
`comprises an acoustic transducer; ....................... 76
`
`(3) Limitations [1.c]-[1.e] ......................................... 77
`
`(4)
`
`[1.f] a rechargeable battery for powering
`the wireless headphone assembly, ....................... 77
`
`(5) Limitation [1.g] ................................................... 78
`
`Claim 4 ........................................................................... 78
`
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 78
`
`Claim 9 ........................................................................... 78
`
`3.
`
`Grounds 3C-3D: Claim 13 Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Nakagawa-Wilson
`or Nakagawa-Rosener in View of Hind ....................................80
`
`VIII. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL.........................81
`
`
`
`Section 314(a): Parallel Litigations Are in Their Infancy ...................81
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Potential for Stay .......................................................................81
`
`Timing of Trial ..........................................................................81
`
`Litigation Investment ................................................................83
`
`– vi –
`
`

`

`4.
`
`Overlap of Issues .......................................................................84
`
`5. Whether Petitioner Is a Litigation Defendant ...........................84
`
`6.
`
`Other Circumstances .................................................................84
`
`
`
`Section 325(d): The Petition Presents New Art and
`Arguments and Shows that the Office Erred in Allowing
`the Challenged Claims Over Rezvani and Rosener ............................84
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Step 1: The Petition Advances Art and
`Arguments Not Previously Considered ....................................85
`
`Step 2: The Office Erred Materially .........................................85
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Factor (c): Rezvani and Rosener Were Not Evaluated.. 85
`
`Factors (e)-(f): The Office Erred ................................... 86
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................87
`
`CLAIM LISTING ....................................................................................................88
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– vii –
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Techs. LLC,
`IPR2019-00627, Paper 41 (Sept. 10, 2019) .................................................. 85, 86
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geraete GMBH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) ........................ 84, 85, 86
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) ............................ 81, 84
`
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 (July 28, 2020) .................................................... 83, 84
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ..................................................... 11, 14
`
`Atl. Research Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy,
`659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................16
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, ¶ 1) .......85
`
`Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00382, Paper 12 (Aug. 6, 2019) ............................................................86
`
`Chester v. Miller,
`906 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................17
`
`Cizion, LLC v. Kerr Machine Co.,
`PGR2020-00065, Paper 10 (Dec. 3, 2020) ........................................................... 83
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................33
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 12, 25
`
`Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.,
`405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................33
`
`– viii –
`
`

`

`HP Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00459, Paper 17 (Sept. 14, 2020) .........................................................83
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................14
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................82
`
`In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................40
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`IPR2019-00047, Paper 8 (July 9, 2019) ...............................................................85
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 28, 29
`
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................14
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................11
`
`MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics AG,
`IPR2020-00190, Paper 15 (June 3, 2020) ............................................................84
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................11
`
`Precision Planting, LLC v. Deere & Co.,
`IPR2019-01048, Paper 17 (Dec. 4, 2019) ............................................................82
`
`Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Ansell Healthcare Prods. LLC,
`IPR2017-00066, Paper 35 (Jan. 30, 2018) .......................................... 3, 11, 12, 14
`
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`857 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 13, 15
`
`– ix –
`
`

`

`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Cellect, LLC,
`IPR2020-00477, Paper 14 (Aug. 5, 2020) ............................................................86
`
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) (informative) ....................................81
`
`Sentry Prot. Prod., Inc. v. Eagle Mfg. Co.,
`2003 WL 25539702 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2003) .................................................33
`
`SHDS, Inc. v. Truinjet Corp.,
`IPR2020-00937, Paper 11 (Nov. 17, 2020) ..........................................................85
`
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00483, Paper 7 (July 27, 2016) .............................................................15
`
`Solaredge Techs. Ltd. v. SMA Solar Techn. AG,
`IPR2020-00021, Paper 8 (Apr. 10, 2020) ............................................................85
`
`Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc.,
`734 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 15, 16
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................ 81, 83
`
`RULES
`
`EPC Rule 43(1)(a) ....................................................................................................10
`
`EPC Rule 43(1)(b) ...................................................................................................10
`
`PCT Rule 11.13(m) ..................................................................................................17
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) ..............................................................................................17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`– x –
`
`

`

`APPENDIX LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155 (“the ’155 patent”)
`1002
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`1003
`Declaration of Tim A. Williams
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Tim A. Williams
`1005
`Declaration of John G. Casali
`1006
`Curriculum Vitae of John G. Casali
`1007
`PCT/US2009/039754 (“PCT application”)
`1008
`U.S. Patent No. 8,190,203
`1009
`European Patent No. 2,272,259 (“EP ’259”)
`1010
`Request for Entry into the European Phase of PCT/US2009/039854
`(European Application No. 093731146.8) (Oct. 19, 2010)
`Communication regarding the transmission of the European search
`report (European Application No. 093731146.8) (June 10, 2011)
`Communication from Applicant (European Application No.
`093731146.8) (Nov. 30, 2011)
`PCT Publication No. WO2009/126614 (“Pelland”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,203
`PCT/US2008/88656 (PCT Publication No. WO2009/086555A1)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0165875 (“Rezvani”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,856,690 (“Skulley”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0142693 (“Feder”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,069,452 (“Hind”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0076489 (“Rosener”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,457,649 (“Wilson”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0223604 (“Nakagawa”)
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`– xi –
`
`

`

`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`1046
`1047
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0253579
`U.S. Patent No. 7,627,289
`U.S. Patent No. 5,889,870
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0031475
`IEEE Std. 315, Graphic Symbols for Electrical and Electronic Diagrams
`(1975) (Reaffirmed 1993)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0141950
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0083331
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0206776
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0286466
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 5,761,298
`U.S. Patent No. 5,960,094
`U.S. Patent No. 6,295,366
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0110017
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0068653
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0113689
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0037818
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0210752
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0149261
`U.S. Patent No. 8,180,078
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0058313
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0147629
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0078812
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0166005
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0065805
`
`– xii –
`
`

`

`1048
`
`1049
`1050
`1051
`1052
`1053
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`Internet Archive of
`http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_PRODUCT_PAGE_EV
`ENT&product=headphones_audio_subcategory (Nov. 1, 2007)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0092098
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0226094
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0018810
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0258613
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0046869
`Redline comparisons of written description text in alleged priority chain
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661-ADA (Dkt. 1)
`(Complaint & Exs. A-G) (W.D. Tex. July 22, 2020)
`RESERVED
`Order Regarding Court Operation Under the Exigent Circumstances
`Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (Mar. 13, 2020)
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operation Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia)
`(Apr. 15, 2020)
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operation Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia)
`(May 8, 2020)
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operation Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia)
`(June 18, 2020)
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operation Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia)
`(July 2, 2020)
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operation Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia)
`(Aug. 6, 2020)
`
`– xiii –
`
`

`

`1063
`
`1064
`
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1074
`
`1075
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operation Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia)
`(Sept. 21, 2020)
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operation Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia)
`(Oct. 14, 2020)
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operation Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia)
`(Nov. 18, 2020)
`PACER Docket Activity Report (Criminal Matters) for the United
`Stated District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin and Waco
`Divisions (01/01/2000-11/30/2020)
`Open Civil Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal, Lex
`Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com (last checked 11/30/2020)
`Open Civil Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal Filed
`Before July 22, 2020, Lex Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com (last
`checked 11/30/2020)
`Open Patent Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal, Lex
`Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com (last checked 11/30/2020)
`Open Patent Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal
`Filed Before July 22, 2020, Lex Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com
`(last checked 11/30/2020)
`Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB
`Discretionary Denials, https://www.patentspostgrant.com/district-court-
`trial-dates-tend-to-slip-after-ptab-discretionary-denials/ (July 24, 2020)
`(last checked Dec. 1, 2020)
`Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of Dec. 7, 2020)
`Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab Audio,
`6:20-cv-00662 (W.D. Tex.) (as of Dec. 7, 2020)
`Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Plantronics, Inc., 6:20-cv-00663
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of Dec. 7, 2020)
`Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., 6:20-cv-00664
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of Dec. 7, 2020)
`
`– xiv –
`
`

`

`1076
`
`1077
`
`1078
`1079
`1080
`
`1081
`1082
`
`1083
`1084
`1085
`1086
`1087
`1088
`1089
`1090
`1091
`1092
`1093
`1094
`1095
`1096
`
`
`
`Skrainer, S. F., Royster, L.H., Berger, E.H., & Pearson, R. G. “Do
`Personal Radio Headsets Provide Hearing Protection,” Sound and
`Vibration, 19(5) (1985), 16-19
`Casali, J. G. & Park, M. Y., “Attenuation performance of four hearing
`protectors under dynamic movement and different user fitting
`conditions,” Human Factors (1990)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,564,989
`RESERVED
`Civil Docket, MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., 6:18-cv-00308
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of Dec. 1, 2020)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0123171
`Agreed Scheduling Order, Koss Corp. v. Plantronics et al.,
`6:20-cv-00663, -00664, -00665 (D.I. 28) (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,571,544
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,571,544
`U.S. Patent No. 9,049,502
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,049,502
`U.S. Patent No. 9,438,987
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,438,987
`U.S. Patent No. 9,497,535
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,497,535
`U.S. Patent No. 9,729,959
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,729,959
`U.S. Patent No. 9,986,325
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,986,325
`U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025
`
`
`– xv –
`
`

`

`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
` Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner Bose Corporation is the real party-in-interest.
`
` Related Matters – § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`1.
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155 (“the ’155 patent”) is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,206,025 (“the ’025 patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,986,325 (“the ’325 patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No,
`
`9,729,959 (“the ’959 patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,497,535 (“the ’535 patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,438,987 (“the ’987 patent”), which is a continuation U.S. Patent No. 9,049,502
`
`(“the ’502 patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,571,544
`
`(“the ’544 patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,203
`
`(“the ’203 patent”) (together with the PCT application, the applications for these
`
`ancestors of the ’155 patent are collectively “the priority applications”).
`
`The following U.S. patents and patent applications claim the benefit of the
`
`filing date of the ’155 patent: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,469,934, 10,491,982,
`
`10,506,325, 10,848,850, 10,757,498, 10,827,251, 10,848,851, and 10,848,852;
`
`Application Nos. 17/070,295 and 17/070,363.
`
`– xvi –
`
`

`

`2.
`
`United States District Court for
`the Western District of Texas
`
`The ’155 patent is at issue in the following pending cases:
`
`• Koss Corp. v. Bose Corporation, 6:20-cv-00661 (“Bose litigation”);
`
`• Koss Corp. v. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab Audio, 6:20-cv-00662 (“JLab litigation”);
`
`• Koss Corp. v. Plantronics, Inc., 6:20-cv-00663 (“Plantronics litigation”); and
`
`• Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., 6:20-cv-00664 (“Skullcandy litigation”).
`
` Counsel and Service Information – § 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`
`Service
`Information
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`Gregory S. Nieberg, Reg. No. 57,063
`Nathan R. Speed (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`E-mail: MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`GNieberg-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`nspeed@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`
`
`
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`
`Telephone: 617-646-8000
`
`Facsimile: 617-646-8646
`
` power of attorney is submitted with this petition. Counsel for Petitioner
`
` A
`
`consent to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`– xvii –
`
`

`

`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-14 (“challenged claims”)
`
`of the ’155 patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’155 patent describes a wireless headphone with conventional
`
`headphone components (e.g., earphones and a rechargeable battery) and
`
`conventional wireless components (e.g., an antenna and a transceiver circuit).
`
`The patent admits that wireless headphones were known and presents the purported
`
`novelty as the headphone’s ability to “transition automatically” between wireless
`
`networks when connectivity with a first network is lost. In particular, the
`
`“invention” is described as the headphone’s ability to receive audio from a data
`
`source (e.g., an iPod®) via an “ad hoc” wireless network (e.g., Bluetooth) and,
`
`when out of range of the ad hoc network, transition automatically to receive audio
`
`via an “infrastructure” wireless network (e.g., WiFi).
`
`The ’155 patent is the eighth in a series of continuations. The initial PCT
`
`application, the first U.S. patent, and its European counterpart (Exs. 1007-1009),
`
`all claimed, consistent with their common disclosure, transitioning automatically
`
`from receiving audio from a data source via an ad hoc network to doing so via an
`
`infrastructure network “when the data source is not in wireless communication
`
`range with the earphone via the ad hoc wireless network.” The claims of the
`
`continuations preceding the ’155 patent addressed other subject matter.
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`Ten years after the PCT application, Koss greatly broadened the
`
`“transition automatically” feature in claim 1 of the ’155 patent:
`
`wherein the headphone assembly is configured, with the processor, to
`transition automatically from playing digital audio content received
`wirelessly by the headphone assembly via a first wireless network to
`playing digital audio content received wirelessly by the headphone
`assembly via a second wireless network.
`
`This language lacks two requirements recited in the earlier claims and
`
`emphasized in the priority applications. First, the transition need not occur when
`
`the headphone loses wireless connectivity—it can occur for any reason. Second,
`
`the transition need not occur between ad hoc and infrastructure networks—it can
`
`involve a “first” wireless network of any type and a “second” wireless network of
`
`any type.
`
`Koss uses this generic claim language to allege infringement by headphones
`
`that transition from receiving audio from a first device to receiving audio from a
`
`second device not because the headphones leave the range of the first device’s
`
`network, but rather because the second device’s audio enjoys higher priority
`
`(a phone call) than the first device’s audio. Further, the accused headphones
`
`communicate with both devices over Bluetooth (an ad hoc network) rather than
`
`transitioning between ad hoc and infrastructure networks. Ex. 1055, Ex. E. This
`
`functionality is nowhere described in the priority applications.
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`Because Koss broadened the challenged claims beyond the invention
`
`described in the priority applications, the claims are not entitled to the benefit of
`
`those earlier dates. The PCT publication (“Pelland,” Ex. 1013) thus is prior art.
`
`E.g., Reckitt Benckiser v. Ansell Healthcare Prods., IPR2017-00066, Paper 35,
`
`13-16 (Jan. 30, 2018). This is the basis for Ground 1.
`
`Although the priority defect alone is fatal, Grounds 2-3 demonstrate that
`
`headphones that transition automatically between wireless networks to receive
`
`digital audio are prior art even assuming the challenged claims’ earliest possible
`
`priority date.
`
`Publication 2007/0165875 (“Rezvani,” Ex. 1016) discloses a wireless
`
`headphone that performs “seamless handoff” of VoIP calls between wireless
`
`networks. The EPO rejected, over Rezvani, claims in the ’155 patent’s European
`
`counterpart with a “transition automatically” limitation similar to (indeed,
`
`narrower than) that of the challenged claims. Koss conceded that Rezvani
`
`discloses that limitation (among others). Infra § V.C.2.b. Grounds 2A-2E are
`
`based on Rezvani.
`
`Publication 2003/0223604 (“Nakagawa,” Ex. 1022) discloses a wireless
`
`headphone that “automatically switches” from playing audio from a device over a
`
`first wireless network to higher-priority audio (e.g., a phone call) from another
`
`device over a second wireless network. Grounds 3A-3D are based on Nakagawa.
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`III. CERTIFICATION OF STANDING
`
`T