`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`CASE: IPR2021-00612
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,206,025
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`
`In response to Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply (“Reply,” Paper 12) to Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR,” Paper 9) filed July 9, 2021, Patent Owner
`
`submits this Sur-Reply.
`
`The trial in the Apple Litigation (Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-
`
`00665-ADA (W.D. Tex.)) is scheduled for April 2022 and it is highly relevant to the
`
`Fintiv analysis, even though Petitioner is not a party to that case. See Apple Inc. v.
`
`Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 14 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (“Even when a
`
`petitioner is unrelated to a defendant, … if the issues are the same as, or substantially
`
`similar to, those already or about to be litigated, or other circumstances weigh against
`
`redoing the work of another tribunal, the Board may, nonetheless, exercise the
`
`authority to deny institution.”). There is substantial overlap between the validity
`
`issues raised in the Petition and in the Apple Litigation; and the verdict in the Apple
`
`Litigation will occur approximately five months before the FWD if the IPR is
`
`instituted. POPR at 10-14, 17-20. The status of the other litigations involving the
`
`’025 Patent does not change the fact that the Petitioner is asking the Board to
`
`duplicate—five months later— the work of the parties and district court in the Apple
`
`Litigation. None of the considerations raised in Petitioner’s Reply alter these facts
`
`or the analysis presented in the POPR.
`
`Regarding the first Fintiv factor, the Reply concedes that “Bose has no control
`
`over whether Apple will seek a stay” under the first Fintiv factor. Reply at 2. As of
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`
`the filing of this Sur-Reply, Apple has not moved to stay the Apple Litigation even
`
`though the Board has instituted three IPRs for patents at issue in the Apple Litigation.
`
`POPR at 9. Because “Bose has no control over whether Apple will seek a stay,” and
`
`because Apple’s actions show that a stay is unlikely, this factor weighs in favor of
`
`discretionary denial.
`
`The Reply’s arguments about the “interrelated” second and fifth Fintiv factors
`
`are also unpersuasive. Petitioner quotes a sentence from Fintiv about the fifth factor
`
`(Reply at 2-3), but omitted the very next sentence in the Board’s reasoning that
`
`undercuts Petitioner’s position. The next sentence explains that even when the
`
`Petitioner is not related to the defendant in the earlier litigation, if the issues are the
`
`same, the “Board may, nonetheless, exercise the authority to deny institution.”
`
`Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 14. Petitioner’s selective quotations from Fintiv
`
`cannot escape that the upcoming trial in the Apple Litigation critically impacts the
`
`Fintiv analysis despite Petitioner’s invitation for the Board to speculate about the
`
`merits of Apple’s mandamus writ to the Federal Circuit. Reply at 3.
`
`If speculation is warranted, the Federal Circuit’s recent decisions in In re
`
`Western Digital Techs., Inc., 847 Fed. Appx. 296 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2021) and In
`
`re TCO AS, Case No. 2021-158, -- Fed. Appx. --, 2021 WL 2935078 (Fed. Cir. July
`
`13, 2021) show that the writ is unlikely. In both of these cases, the Federal Circuit
`
`upheld denials of transfer by Judge Albright, the presiding judge in the Apple
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`
`Litigation, under similar circumstances because the “legal standard for mandamus is
`
`demanding”—whether the transfer ruling was “such a clear abuse of discretion that
`
`refusing transfer produced a patently erroneous result.” Western Digital, 847 Fed.
`
`Appx. at 926 (internal quotations omitted). In light of this “demanding” standard,
`
`the Federal Circuit is unlikely to transfer the Apple Litigation, especially considering
`
`that the Northern District of California characterized Judge Albright’s decision on
`
`Apple’s transfer motion as “thoughtful.” KOSS-2007, 2.
`
`As explained in the POPR, validity issues in the Apple Litigation are
`
`substantially similar to validity issues raised in the Petition. POPR at 17-20. The
`
`trial in the Apple Litigation also highly likely to conclude approximately five months
`
`before the FWD if the IPR is instituted because a mandamus writ from the Federal
`
`Circuit is unlikely. Thus, factors 2 and 5 and favor discretionary denial, even though
`
`Petitioner is not a litigant in the Apple Litigation.
`
`Regarding the third Fintiv factor, the Reply raises the strawman argument that
`
`“much work [in the Apple Litigation] remains after the institution deadline herein.”
`
`Reply at 3. This is irrelevant because the appropriate time to evaluate the investment
`
`of the parties is “at the time of the institution decision.” Verizon Bus. Network Servs.
`
`LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., IPR2020- 01292, Paper 13 at 14 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2021).
`
`In fact, the Dolby case on which Petitioner relies (Reply at 2) “clarifies” that the key
`
`date for measuring the investment is the institution date. Dolby Labs v. Intertrust
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`
`Tech., IPR2020-00665, Paper 11 at 18 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2021) (“we take this
`
`opportunity to clarify that the focus of our inquiry under this factor is the actual
`
`investment by the district court and the parties in the [litigation] at the time we decide
`
`whether to institute this proceeding—not the anticipated investment to occur at some
`
`future time when we are projected to issue a final written decision”).
`
`In the Apple Litigation, the parties and the court will have invested significant
`
`resources by the time the Board decides institution. POPR, 15-16. Even if “much
`
`work” will remain after the institution deadline, that work will be completed five
`
`months before the FWD if the IPR instituted. Dolby does not help Petitioner because
`
`in Dolby, fact discovery was “far from complete” by the time the Board was due to
`
`issue the institution decision. Dolby at 19. Contrarily, in the Apple Litigation, fact
`
`discovery will be 75% complete (measured by number of days) by the time of the
`
`institution decision. BOSE-1082 (fact discovery opening April 23, 2021 and closing
`
`November 4, 2021). This significant investment favors discretionary denial. See
`
`Verizon Bus. Network Servs., IPR2020-01292, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2021).
`
`Regarding the fourth Fintiv factor, Petitioner ignores the language of its
`
`stipulation to assert that it is “untrue” that Petitioner is prohibited from reclassifying
`
`references as primary or secondary. Reply 4. Indeed, Petitioner does not even
`
`identify any language in its stipulation that supports its position. Nothing in the
`
`stipulation prevents Petitioner from relying on the same teachings of Rezvani-875
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`
`and/or Schrager after reclassifying them as “secondary” references. KOSS-2021, 1.
`
`Petitioner essentially argues that Petitioner’s stipulation does not mean what it says.
`
`If Petitioner desires to revise its stipulation to match what Petitioner asserts it says,
`
`such as revising the stipulation in accordance with the Board’s guidance in Sotera
`
`Wireless Inc. v. Massimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12, 18 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020),
`
`it is free to do so.
`
`Regarding the sixth Fintiv factor, the merits of the Petition are weak for the
`
`reasons raised in the POPR. POPR at 32-42 (explaining a conclusory motivation to
`
`combine, a hindsight reconstruction, and an inaccurate characterization of elements).
`
`Furthermore, the merits need only be strong enough to outweigh the other factors.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 (PTAB
`
`Jan. 5, 2021). Here, the holistic assessment of the factors show the denial is
`
`warranted. POPR at 22-24.
`
`For these reasons and those stated in the POPR, the Board should exercise
`
`its discretion to deny institution.
`
`Dated: July 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`/Mark G. Knedeisen/
`Mark G. Knedeisen (Reg. No. 42,747)
`K&L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`Tel.: (412) 355-6342
`
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`
`IPR2021-00612
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Counselfor Patent Owner
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00612
`
`Certification of Service Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`
`I hereby certify that on July 19, 2021, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing to be served on the following counsel for Petitioner by electronic mail to
`
`the following email address:
`
`Michael N. Rader
`Gregory S. Nieberg
`Nathan R. Speed
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Email: MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`Email: GNieberg@wolfgreenfield.com
`Email: nspeed@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`/Mark G. Knedeisen/
`Mark G. Knedeisen (Reg. No. 42,747)
`K&L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`Tel.: (412) 355-6342
`
`
`
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`504300501.1
`
`
`