`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`TCT MOBILE (US), INC.; TCT MOBILE (US) HOLDINGS, INC.;
`HUIZHOU TCL MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD.; AND
`TCL COMMUNICATION, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2021-00599
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`___________________
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC's
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION TO SUBMIT
`SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.123(A)
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00599
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`The PTAB rules require that "[w]hen a party relies on a document or is
`
`required to produce a document in a language other than English, a translation of the
`
`document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation
`
`must be filed with the document." 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). Petitioners rely on the
`
`Japanese patent application, Morita, as its primary reference. Petitioners allege that
`
`their original certificate of accuracy has met all the requirements. Mot. 1, 3. If true,
`
`there is no need for Petitioners to supplement the record with the new certificate. If
`
`not, Petitioners should acknowledge that they made a mistake and are submitting the
`
`new certificate to correct that mistake. Regardless, because the new certificate is on
`
`its face inaccurate, the Board should deny Petitioner's motion to supplement.
`
`Petitioners first suggest that their original certificate was not deficient because
`
`Consortra Translations had used the same form of certification without objections
`
`and that another law firm representing an unrelated client allegedly used a similar
`
`certificate in another proceeding. Mot. 1, 3. Petitioners do not explain, however,
`
`why Patent Owner was/is bound by arguments or inactions of unrelated parties or
`
`why the original certificate actually meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`
`Indeed, that Petitioners are concerned enough to secure a second Certificate of
`
`Accuracy and seek its submission suggests the opposite.
`
`Regarding the new certificate of accuracy, Patent Owner opposes its
`
`submission because the certificate is on its face inaccurate and/or false. As is clear
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00599
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`from the reproduced images below, the new certificate shows a signature date earlier
`
`than the one shown on the original certificate, even though Petitioners supposedly
`
`obtained the new certificate only in response to the POPR(s) filed this year. Mot. 1.
`
`Ex. 1015
`(original
`certificate)
`with a signature
`date of
`11/13/2020
`
`Ex. 1019
`(updated
`certificate) with
`a signature date
`of 9/15/2020,
`before
`11/30/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00599
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`It is also suspicious that the two certificates purportedly signed on two
`
`different dates have the same signatures as well as spacing between the notary stamp
`
`and the words "Notary Public." See blue boxes above. In fact, when the undersigned
`
`printed the two certificates out and overlaid them, nearly everything aligned
`
`perfectly. Yet Petitioners do not explain how this can be the case if the two
`
`certificates were signed on two different occasions and the notary public affixed the
`
`stamp and his signature after Ms. Smith swore and signed before him.
`
`For these reasons, the new certificate is on its face inaccurate and suspect, and
`
`the parties should not knowingly rely on such a certificate. Admitting the new
`
`certificate will be prejudicial to Patent Owner because it compounds the defects in
`
`the certificate of accuracy and will force Patent Owner to investigate and litigate
`
`issues that may be tangential to the patentability of the '586 patent. As such, Patent
`
`Owner respectfully requests that the Board denies Petitioners' motion to supplement.
`
`
`Dated: October 4, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Hong Zhong/
`H. Annita Zhong (Reg. No. 66,530)
`Jason Sheasby (pro hac vice)
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`Email: HZhong@irell.com
`Email: JSheasby@irell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.6, that on October 4, 2021,
`
`Case IPR2021-00599
`Patent No. 7,834,586
`
`
`a complete copy of the foregoing was served upon the following, by
`
`ELECTRONIC MAIL:
`
` ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
`
` Jeffrey Johnson, Reg. No. 53,078
`3J6PTABDocket@orrick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert J. Benson
`R75PTABDocket@orrick.com
`
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`PTABDocketJJL2@Orrick.com
`
`TCL-FISI_OHS@orrick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Susan M. Langworthy/
` Susan M. Langworthy
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`