`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`CASE: IPR2021-00626
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,206,025
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`C. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4 
`A. 
`The ’025 Patent ..................................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Related Patents ...................................................................................... 5 
`C. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 5 
`III.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION BECAUSE OF CO-
`PENDING LITIGATION INVOLVING THE ’025 PATENT ....................... 7 
`A. 
`Factor 1: The District Court Has Not Issued a Stay ............................. 9 
`B. 
`Factor 2: Proximity of the Scheduled Trial Date to the Board’s
`Statutory Deadline for Written Decision ............................................. 10 
`Factor 3: The Parties and Court Will Have Invested Substantial
`Resources in the Texas Litigation Prior to the Institution
`Decision ............................................................................................... 14 
`Factor 4: The Issues Raised in the Petition Overlap
`Substantially with Issues Raised in the Texas Litigation .................... 16 
`Factor 5: Petitioner is a Defendant in the Texas Litigation ............... 20 
`Factor 6: Other Considerations That Influence the Board’s
`Exercise of Discretion Weigh in Favor of Denying Institution .......... 21 
`G.  Holistic Assessment of Fintiv Factors ................................................. 24 
`IV.  THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED DISCRETIONARILY
`UNDER GENERAL PLASTIC ....................................................................... 26 
`A. 
`Factor 1: Whether the Same Petitioner Previously Filed a
`Petition Directed to the Same Claims of the Same Patent .................. 28 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`F. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`V. 
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Factor 2: Whether at the Time of Filing of the First Petition the
`Petitioner Knew of the Prior Art Asserted in the Second
`Petition or Should Have Known of It .................................................. 29 
`Factor 3: Whether at the Time of Filing of the Second Petition
`the Petitioner Already Received the Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response to the First Petition or Received the Board’s Decision
`on Whether to Institute Review of the First Petition .......................... 31 
`Factor 4: The Length of Time that Elapsed Between the Time
`the Petitioner Learned of the Prior Art Asserted in the Second
`Petition and the Filing of the Second Petition ..................................... 32 
`Factor 5: Whether the Petitioner Provides Adequate
`Explanation for the Time Elapsed Between the Filings of
`Multiple Petitions Directed to the Same Claims of the Same
`Patent ................................................................................................... 33 
`Factors 6 and 7: The Finite Resources of the Board, and the
`Requirement to Issue a Final Determination Not Later Than
`One Year After the Date on Which the Director Notices
`Institution of Review ........................................................................... 34 
`THE PETITION FAILS TO SHOW THAT THERE IS
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONER WILL
`PREVAIL ON A SINGLE CLAIM .............................................................. 36 
`A. 
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Haupt-Seshadri-716
`Combination Satisfies All Elements of Claim 1 ................................. 37 
`1. 
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Haupt-Seshadri-716
`Combination Satisfies “a remote, network-connected
`server that is in wireless communication with the mobile,
`digital audio player” as Recited in Claim 1 .............................. 38 
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Haupt-Seshadri-716
`Combination Satisfies “the processor for, upon activation
`of a user-control of the headphone assembly, initiating
`transmission of a request to the remote, network-
`connected, server” ..................................................................... 41 
`
`F. 
`
`2. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`3. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Haupt-Seshadri-716
`Combination Satisfies “a rechargeable battery for
`powering the headphone assembly” ......................................... 42 
`The Petition’s Rationales for Combining Haupt and Seshadri-
`716 are Defective ................................................................................. 47 
`1. 
`The Petition’s Rationales for Combining Haupt and
`Seshadri-716 are Inconsistent and Conclusory ......................... 47 
`The Petition Does Not Identify a Recognized Rationale
`for Combining References ........................................................ 49 
`The Proposed Haupt-Seshadri-716 Combination Relies
`on Hindsight Reconstruction..................................................... 51 
`The Petition Did Not Follow the Proper Framework for
`Assessing Obviousness ....................................................................... 53 
`1. 
`Legal Framework for Assessing Obviousness .......................... 53 
`2. 
`The Petition Does Not Identify the Differences Between
`the Claimed Subject Matter and the Cited References ............. 56 
`The Petition’s Improper Obviousness Analysis Places an
`Undue Burden on the Board ..................................................... 58 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 50, 51
`Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co.,
`IPR 2018-01596, Paper 20 (PTAB March 6, 2019) ........................................... 58
`Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co.,
`IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019) ............................................... 59
`Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 30
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 51
`Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00445, Paper 9 (PTAB July 9, 2015) .................................................. 51
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.,
`IPR2018-01356, Paper 9 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 5, 2019) ..................................... 32, 33
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020) ...................................passim
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00255, Paper 22 (PTAB June 3, 2021) ........................................passim
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00305, Paper 14 (PTAB June 3, 2021) ..................................... 6, 18, 24
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00381, Paper 15 (PTAB July 2, 2021) .........................................passim
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 45, 46
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc.,
`962 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 45
`Belden Inv. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 52
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Monarch Networking Sols. LLC,
`IPR2020-01226, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2021) ............................................... 20
`Club Champion LLC v. True Spec Golf LLC,
`IPR2019-01569, Paper 9 (PTAB March 17, 2020) ...................................... 34, 35
`DynamicDrinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 56
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ........................................passim
`Goggle LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC,
`IPR2018-01342, Paper 47 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2020) .............................................. 34
`Google Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (PTAB May 22, 2014) ................................... 56, 59, 60
`Google LLC v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC,
`IPR2020-00724, Paper 19 (PTAB Aug. 31, 2020) ............................................... 9
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 51, 53
`Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01668, Paper 6 (PTAB April 16, 2019) .............................................. 33
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 7, 56
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2019-01192, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2020) .................................................. 8
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 59
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 (PTAB October 16, 2018) .......................................... 54
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 45
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 54
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 47, 51, 54, 55
`Metall Zug AG v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AG,
`IPR2020-01074, Paper 8 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) .................................................. 29
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 51, 52
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 20
`Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00633, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2016) ......................................... 51, 52
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ................................................. 1
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................ 46
`PersonalWeb Tech., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 49, 54
`In re Rijckaet,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 45
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) ...................................... 9, 17, 21
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp. Trucking
`LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ....................................... 12, 20
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 49, 54
`Seko S.p.A. v. CM2W JSC,
`Case IPR2020-01636, Paper 9 (PTAB January 7, 2021) ................................... 35
`SK Hynix v. Netlist,
`IPR2020-01421, Paper 10 (Mar. 16, 2021) ........................................................ 15
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................... 20
`Ultradent Prods., Inc. v. Life–Like Cosmetics, Inc.,
`127 F.3d 1065 (Fed.Cir.1997) ............................................................................ 30
`Verizon Bus. Network Servs. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`IPR2020-01292, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2021) .................................. 15, 16, 21
`Verizon Bus. Network Svs., LLC v. Huawei Tech. Co.,
`IPR2020-01278, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 26, 2021) .............................................. 20
`Wilson Elec., LLC. v. Cellphone-Mate, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01778, Paper 10 (PTAB April 23, 2019) ............................................ 53
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 3, 36
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 60
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ........................................................................................................ 34
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .................................................................................................... 8, 10
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 33
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a) ............................................................................................... 34
`84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 at 26 (July 16, 2019) ............................................................... 26
`MPEP § 2163.07(b).................................................................................................. 30
`TRIAL PRACTICE GUIDE CONSOLIDATED at 36 (July 2019) ...................................... 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`EXHIBIT LISTING
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`KOSS-2001 Docket Report, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:20-cv-00665-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.) (as of July 9, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2002
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 68 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2003 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Transfer (Redacted/Public
`version), Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt.
`76 (April 22, 2021 W.D. Tex.)
`
`KOSS-2004 Docket Report, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., Case 4:20-cv-05504-JST
`(N.D. Cal.) (as of June 15, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2005 Order Granting Motion to Transfer, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., Case
`No. 20-cv-05504-JST, Dkt. 72 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2006 U.S. Patent 8,190,203
`
`KOSS-2007 U.S. Patent 8,571,544
`
`KOSS-2008 U.S. Patent 8,655,420
`
`KOSS-2009 U.S. Patent 9,049,502
`
`KOSS-2010 U.S. Patent 9,438,987
`
`KOSS-2011 U.S. Patent 9,497,535
`
`KOSS-2012 U.S. Patent 9,729,959
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Exhibit
`KOSS-2013 U.S. Patent 9,986,325
`
`Description
`
`KOSS-2014 R. Davis, “Albright Says He’ll Very Rarely Put Cases On Hold
`For PTAB,” Law 360, May 11, 2021
`(www.law360.com/ip/articles/1381597/albright-says-he-ll-very-
`rarely-put-cases-on-hold-for-ptab?nl_pk=c24deb67-194a-4b6c-
`918a-
`ea02a827e121&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&ut
`m_campaign=ip) (last accessed July 9, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2015 Order Denying Motion to Stay, Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan
`Industrial Holdings, et al., Case 6:20-cv-00200-ADA, Dkt. 76
`(W.D. Tex. April 7, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2016
`
`Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 84 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2017 Order Governing Proceedings - Patent Case, Judge Albright, W.D.
`Tex. Waco Division, Feb. 23, 2021
`
`KOSS-2018 Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2021-00255, (PTAB Nov. 25,
`2020)
`
`KOSS-2019 Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2021-00600, (PTAB Mar. 7,
`2021)
`
`KOSS-2020 Claim Construction Order, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:20-cv-
`00665-ADA, Dkt. 83 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2021
`
`Joint Motion to Amend Agreed Scheduling Order, Koss Corp. v
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 85 (W.D. Tex.
`June 15, 2021).
`
`KOSS-2023 Defendant Apple Inc.’s Invalidity Contentions, Koss Corp. v Apple
`Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 85 (W.D. Tex.) (served
`January 15, 2021).
`
`x
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`KOSS-2024 Exhibit A2 of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Invalidity Contentions, Koss
`Corp. v Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 85 (W.D.
`Tex.) (served January 15, 2021).
`
`KOSS-2025 U.S. Pub. 2008/0194209 A1 to Haupt et al.
`
`KOSS-2026 S. Carlson and R. Schultz, “Tallying Repetitive Inter Partes Review
`Challenges,”
`Law
`360,
`September
`14,
`2018
`(www.law360.com/articles/1083158/tallying-repetitive-inter-
`partes-review-challenges) (accessed July 9, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner, Koss Corporation (“Koss”), submits this Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (“POPR”) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) to the Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) petition (“Petition”) filed by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) for
`
`claims 1-6, 9, 11-17, 19-26, 28-35, 37, and 40-50 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent 10,206,025 (“’025 Patent”).
`
`The Board should deny institution for several reasons.
`
`First, institution of the IPR would demand an untimely and inefficient
`
`proceeding that would effectively “second guess” the result of a jury trial in
`
`concurrent litigation. See NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-
`
`00752, Paper 8 at 11–21 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (Precedential); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv,
`
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 2–3 (PTAB March 20, 2020) (Precedential).
`
`Patent Owner is asserting the ’025 Patent against Petitioner in co-pending litigation
`
`in the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”). Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (“Texas Litigation”). KOSS-2001; KOSS-2002;
`
`KOSS-2020. The trial in the Texas Litigation is scheduled (and recently confirmed)
`
`to commence in April 2022 (APPLE-1016, 4; KOSS-2001, 14 (see Dkt. 72); KOSS-
`
`2021, 8), almost six months before an expected final written decision (“FWD”) if
`
`the IPR is instituted, resulting in a substantial risk of conflicting decisions regarding
`
`the validity of the ’025 Patent.
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Second, the Petition should be denied under General Plastic Indus. Co. v.
`
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017)
`
`(precedential) (hereinafter, “General Plastic”). Petitioner also filed an earlier
`
`petition against the ’025 Patent, see IPR2021-00546 (“First Petition”), and each
`
`reference raised by the present Petition (“Second Petition”) in an invalidity ground
`
`was asserted in an invalidity ground in the First Petition. Indeed, every combination
`
`of references asserted in the Second Petition corresponds to an identical combination
`
`in the First Petition (Grounds 1A-1D in Second Petition correspond to Grounds 1A,
`
`1B, 1D and 1F in First Petition). Compare Second Petition at 1-2 to First Petition at
`
`1-2. Additionally, Petitioner’s two IPRs for the ’025 Patent challenge many of the
`
`same claims (twenty-two challenged claims are the same in both petitions).
`
`Petitioner’s purported justification for the delay in filing the Second Petition
`
`is mere pretext. Petitioner’s stated reason is that the Second Petition “advances an
`
`additional reference (Seshadri-818 [APPLE-1013]), in conjunction with the prior art
`
`from [the First Petition], with the intent of demonstrating the unpatentability of
`
`[certain] dependent claims ….” Pet. at 68. However, Seshadri-818 is neither new
`
`nor additional relative to the First Petition because Seshadri-818 is incorporated into
`
`another reference, Pub. 2006/0166716 (“Seshadri-716,” APPLE-1007), that is relied
`
`on for every ground asserted in the First Petition. See Petition, IPR2021-00546, at
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`1-2; APPLE-1007, ¶[0001] (incorporating by reference Serial No. 10/856,430,
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`which is Seshadri-818); Pet. at 37-38 (admitting the Seshadri-818 is incorporated
`
`into Seshadri-716). Thus, from reading Seshadri-716, which is used in the First
`
`Petition for every asserted invalidity ground, Petitioner knew of, or should have
`
`known of, Seshadri-818. Still further, the Second Petition does not even rely on
`
`Seshadri-818 as a “basis for rejection” for the Challenged Claims in the Second
`
`Petition. Pet. at 1-2 (“Basis for Rejection” column). Thus, Petitioner is requesting
`
`the Board to expend duplicative resources to assess the validity of many of the same
`
`claims of the ’025 Patent on substantially similar grounds. The Board should,
`
`accordingly, deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to mitigate duplicative work
`
`and the risk of conflicting decisions.
`
`Third, the Board should deny institution because the Petition does not
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would have been
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim of the ’025
`
`Patent and the Petition asserts that claim 1 would have been obvious over a
`
`combination of Haupt (APPLE-1004) and Seshadri-716 (APPLE-1007). The
`
`Petition, however, fails to show that several elements of independent claim 1 are
`
`present or otherwise suggested by the Haupt-Seshadri-716 combination. In fact,
`
`Petitioner recognized that the Haupt-Seshadri-716 combination does not show one
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`claim element in particular and instead tried to plug the hole in its analysis with a
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`tertiary reference, Hankey (APPLE-1005), without ever setting forth a ground of
`
`unpatentability that includes Hankey, including failing to identify any motivation to
`
`combine the three references and performing any Graham-factor analysis involving
`
`Hankey. Further, the Petition relies on a rationale for combining Haupt and
`
`Seshadri-716 that is inconsistent with what Petitioner asserts those references show.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on an irrational rationale reveals that the motivation was, in fact,
`
`hindsight reconstruction. Further yet, the Petition fails to follow the proper legal
`
`framework for assessing obviousness and, in so doing, places a significant burden
`
`on the Board to sift through Petitioner’s positions and information.
`
`These reasons are independent and the Board can deny institution for either
`
`of these reasons.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’025 Patent
`The ’025 Patent includes fifty-six (56) claims, of which claim 1 is the sole
`
`independent claim. Claim 1 claims a system that comprises a mobile, digital audio
`
`player (“DAP”), a headphone assembly, and a remote, network-connected server.
`
`The mobile DAP is for transmitting digital audio content to the headphone assembly
`
`wirelessly. The headphone assembly comprises a processor, which is for initiating
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`transmission of a request to the remote, network-connected server upon activation
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`of a user-control of the headphone assembly. APPLE-1001, 18:2-34.
`
`The Petition asserts four total grounds, namely Grounds 1A–1D. Ground 1A
`
`asserts that certain claims (including independent claim 1) would have been obvious
`
`over the combination of Haupt (APPLE-1004) and Seshadri-716 (APPLE-1007).
`
`Ground 1A is the only asserted ground for independent claim 1. Pet. at 1.
`
`B. Related Patents
`The ’025 Patent is the ninth patent in a patent family dating back to a
`
`provisional application filed April 7, 2008 and a PCT application filed April 7, 2009.
`
`APPLE-1001, 2; KOSS-2006 to KOSS-2013. There are patents in the family that
`
`issued after the ’025 Patent (U.S. Patents 10,368155; 10,469,934; 10,491,982;
`
`10,506,325; 10,848,850; 10,757,498; 10,827,251; 10,848,851; 10,484,852;
`
`10,959,011 and 10,959,012) and one pending application. See Paper 4 (Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices, March 24, 2021).
`
`C. Related Matters
`Patent Owner is asserting the ’025 Patent, along with four other patents,
`
`against Petitioner in the Texas Litigation. KOSS-2002, 2. The Petition is one of ten
`
`IPRs filed by Petitioner for patents owned by Patent Owner—two petitions for each
`
`of the five patents asserted against Petitioner in the Texas Litigation. See also
`
`IPR2021-00255 (for Patent 10,298,451), IPR2021-00305 (for Patent 10,506,325),
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`IPR2021-00381 (for Patent 10,491,982), IPR2021-00546 (for Patent 10,206,025),
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2021-00592 (for Patent 10,469,934), IPR2021-00600 (for Patent 10,298,451),
`
`IPR2021-00679 (for Patent 10,506,325), IPR2021-00686 (for Patent 10,491,982),
`
`and IPR2021-00693 (for Patent 10,496,934). The Board instituted IPR2021-00255
`
`for Patent 10,298,451, IPR2021-00305 for Patent 10,506,325, and IPR2021-00381
`
`for Patent 10,491,982. See Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00255, Paper 22
`
`(PTAB June 3, 2021); Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00305, Paper 14 (PTAB
`
`June 3, 2021); Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00381, Paper 15 (PTAB July 2,
`
`2021). The Board has not yet decided institution for the other petitions filed by
`
`Petitioner.
`
`This petition, the “Second Petition,” is the second of two petitions filed by
`
`Petitioner against the ’025 Patent. The First Petition is IPR2021-00546, filed
`
`February 22, 2021. Another party, Bose Corporation, also filed a petition against
`
`the ’025 Patent. See IPR2021-00612, filed March 3, 2021. The Board has not yet
`
`made institution decisions on any of these three petitions for the ’025 Patent.
`
`The Texas Litigation is headed for trial in April 2022. APPLE-1016, 4;
`
`KOSS-2001, 14 (Dkt. 72) (“The Court has set the Jury Trial date of April 18, 2022”);
`
`KOSS-2021, 8. To that end, in the Texas Litigation, the district court already held
`
`a Markman hearing on April 23, 2021 and issued the claim construction ruling on
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`June 2, 2021. KOSS-2001, 13 (Dkt. 58), 14 (Dkt. 72), 15 (Dkt. 83); KOSS-2020.
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`The district court also denied Petitioner’s motion to transfer the Texas Litigation to
`
`the Northern District of California (“NDCal”). KOSS-2003.
`
`Petitioner filed a declaratory judgement action pertaining to the five patents
`
`asserted against it (including the ’025 Patent) in NDCal. KOSS-2004. The district
`
`court in that case granted Patent Owner’s motion to transfer the NDCal case to
`
`WDTX. KOSS-2005.
`
`Petitioner recently petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus
`
`directing the district court to transfer the Texas Litigation to NDCal. See In re Apple,
`
`Case No. 21-147 (Fed. Cir.). The Federal Circuit has not yet ruled on that petition.
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION BECAUSE OF CO-
`PENDING LITIGATION INVOLVING THE ’025 PATENT
`The Board “is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(b) (“Director shall determine whether to institute an inter partes review
`
`….”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (“Inter partes review shall not be instituted unless the
`
`Board decides that the information presented in the petition demonstrates that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is
`
`unpatentable.”). The Board may apply this discretion in consideration of “the
`
`integrity of the patent system, [and] the efficient administration of the Office ….”
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b). The Board has denied institution “to minimize the duplication
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`of work by two tribunals to resolve the same issue.” Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`
`IPR2019-01192, Paper 15 at 11 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2020).
`
`In Fintiv, the Board outlined six factors that inform its decision “to deny
`
`institution in view of an earlier trial date in [a] parallel proceeding.” IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 11 at 6. The Board weighs and considers the holistic effect of each of
`
`the following factors: (1) whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; (2) proximity of the court’s trial date to
`
`the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; (3) investment
`
`in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; (4) overlap between issues
`
`raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; (5) whether the petitioner and
`
`the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and (6) other
`
`circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits
`
`(collectively, “Fintiv factors”). Id. at 5–15.
`
`The Fintiv factors collectively justify denial of the Petition because the ’025
`
`Patent is being asserted presently against Petitioner in the Texas Litigation. Denying
`
`institution of the IPR is consistent with recent Board decisions, preserves the
`
`integrity of the patent system, promotes the efficient administration of Office
`
`resources, and minimizes duplicative work by two different tribunals. See id.;
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 at 18
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`(PTAB Jan. 5, 2021); Google LLC v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC,
`
`IPR2020-00724, Paper 19 at 6, 11 (PTAB Aug. 31, 2020).
`
`A.
`Factor 1: The District Court Has Not Issued a Stay
`This factor cuts in favor of discretionary denial. Petitioner has not represented
`
`that it will seek a stay of the Texas Litigation if the IPR is instituted. Instead,
`
`Petitioner merely speculated that a stay “would be appropriate” if the IPR is
`
`instituted. Pet. at 70.
`
`Moreover, a stay of the Texas Litigation is unlikely because the presiding
`
`judge in the Texas Litigation, Judge Albright, is unlikely to grant a stay given the
`
`advanced status of the Texas Litigation. Judge Albright has, by his own admission,
`
`only put “one or two” cases on hold so that the Board can review the patent, absent
`
`a joint motion to stay. KOSS-2014. Regarding the factual circumstances that led to
`
`the granting of those “one or two” motions to stay, Judge Albright explained that the
`
`plaintiff had earlier sued other defendants on the same patent in a different district
`
`and those other defendants had their petitions instituted, such that IPRs were well
`
`underway by the time patent owner filed the later complaints in the Western District
`
`of Texas. Id., 1. These circumstances are not present in the Texas Litigation.
`
`In the Texas Litigation, claim construction is complete and fact discovery has
`
`commenced. APPLE-1016, 3; KOSS-2020. According to Judge Albright, this
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`indicates that the Texas Litigation is in a later stage and warrants the preservation of
`
`IPR2021-00626
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`a trial date in spite of institution. KOSS-2015 (Judge Albright denying a defendant’s
`
`motion to stay pending an IPR).
`
`The practical unlikelihood of a stay is reflected by the fact that Petitioner has
`
`not moved to stay the Texas Litigation in light of instituted IPRs for three other
`
`patents involved in the Texas Litigation. See Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-
`
`00255, Paper 22 (PTAB June 3, 2021) (for U.S. Patent 10,298,451); Apple Inc. v.
`
`Koss Corp., IPR2021-00305, Paper 14 (PTAB June 3, 2021) (for U.S. Patent
`
`10,506,325); Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00381, Paper 15 (PTAB July 2,
`
`2021) (for U.S. Patent 10,491,982). The Board instituted two of these IPRs more
`
`than one month before the filing of this POPR. The fact that Petitioner has still not
`
`