IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re Patent of: Michael J. Koss, et al.
`U.S. Patent No.:
`10,506,325 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0022IP1/0022IP2
`Issue Date:
`December 10, 2019
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 16/528,703
`
`Filing Date:
`August 1, 2019
`
`Title:
`SYSTEM WITH WIRELESS EARPHONES
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE RANKING PETITIONS
`AND EXPLAINING MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
`PETITIONS AGAINST U.S. PATENT NO. 10,506,325
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Patent of: Michael J. Koss, et al.
`U.S. Patent No.:
`10,506,325 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0022IP1/0022IP2
`Issue Date:
`December 10, 2019
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 16/528,703
`
`Filing Date:
`August 1, 2019
`
`Title:
`SYSTEM WITH WIRELESS EARPHONES
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE RANKING PETITIONS
`AND EXPLAINING MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
`PETITIONS AGAINST U.S. PATENT NO. 10,506,325
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0022IP1/0022IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325
`Petitioner now has two concurrent petitions challenging the validity of all
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325 (“the ’325 patent”): IPR2021-00305 filed
`
`12/15/2020 and IPR2021-00679 filed March 19 (herewith). As explained below,
`
`each petition challenges a different set of the 18 claims Koss asserted against Ap-
`
`ple in the co-pending litigation. APPLE-1014. Pursuant to the Board’s July 2019
`
`Trial Practice Guide Update, Petitioner submits this paper to “identify: (1) a rank-
`
`ing of the Petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the mer-
`
`its…, and (2) a succinct explanation of the differences between the Petitions, why
`
`the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should ex-
`
`ercise its discretion to institute additional petitions.”
`
`I.
`
`Ordering of Petitions
`
`Petitioner believes that both petitions are meritorious and justified, espe-
`
`cially because (as explained further below), both petitions are necessary to address
`
`the 18 claims that Koss asserted against Apple in the co-pending district court liti-
`
`gation. Nonetheless, to the extent required, Apple requests that the Board consider
`
`the petitions in the following order:
`
`Rank
`
`PTAB Case No.
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1-4, 9, 10, 14-20
`
`IPR2021-00305
`
`(First Petition)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-00679
`
`5-8, 11-13
`
`1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0022IP1/0022IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325
`
`(Second Petition)
`
`
`
`II. Material Differences that Compel Permitting Multiple Petitions
`
`The Board’s “Trial Practice Guide” notes that “the Board recognizes that
`
`there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, in-
`
`cluding, for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of
`
`claims.” Consolidated TPG at 59 (Nov. 2019). This case presents a prototypical
`
`case where “patent owner has asserted a large number of claims.” As explained in
`
`Section V of both petitions, Koss has taken no steps to narrow the dispute, and has
`
`instead asserted all 18 claims of the ’325 Patent against Apple in the co-pending
`
`litigation.
`
`Each of the petitions of the first and second petitions cover different claims.
`
`Specifically, the first petition challenges claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 14-20, which is all
`
`claims except those dependent claims that recite that “the processor circuits are
`
`configured to transition from playing streaming audio content received wirelessly
`
`from a first digital audio source via a first communication link to playing streaming
`
`audio content received wirelessly from a second digital audio source via a second
`
`communication link based on, at least in part, a signal strength for the second wire-
`
`less communication link” (i.e., the “signal strength claims”). The second petition
`
`relies upon the disclosure of Seshadri, in addition to the prior art relied upon in
`
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0022IP1/0022IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325
`IPR2021-00305, with the intent of demonstrating the unpatentability of the signal
`
`strength claims (i.e., claims 5-8, 11-13). Given the dependencies of the signal
`
`strength claims, however, the primary difference between the first and second peti-
`
`tions is found in sections of the second petition that address the signal strength
`
`claims. This is a concise addition to deal with the 7 signal strength claims, the in-
`
`clusion of which was entirely precipitated by Koss’s allegation that Apple infringes
`
`all 18 claims of the ’325 patent. APPLE-1014. Apple has judiciously moderated
`
`any increase in burden from the two petitions, such that any increase in burden is a
`
`direct result of Koss’s conduct in the co-pending litigation.
`
`Lastly, in an effort to avoid any prejudice to Koss, Apple is willing to sub-
`
`scribe to two scheduling adjustments in IPR2021-00305 and IPR2021-00679 rela-
`
`tive to the model scheduling order: (1) in IPR2021-00679, the deadline for Peti-
`
`tioner’s reply (DUE DATE 2) is shortened by 6 weeks; and (2) in IPR2021-00305,
`
`the deadline for Patent Owner’s sur-reply (DUE DATE 3) is lengthened to fall on
`
`the same day as the deadline for Petitioner’s reply (DUE DATE 2) in the present
`
`proceeding. In this way, Koss’s sur-reply in IPR2021-00305 and Petitioner’s reply
`
`in IPR2021-00679 are due on the same day, eliminating any possibility of Apple
`
`gaining any advantage due to the timing differences between the two proceedings.
`
`For each of these reasons, Apple respectfully requests institution of both of
`
`its concurrently filed IPR petitions against the ’325 patent.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0022IP1/0022IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325
`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
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Dated
`
`3-22-21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0022IP1/0022IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on March 22, 2021, a complete and entire copy of this “Petitioner’s
`
`Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences Between Petitions
`
`Against U.S. Patent No. 10,506,325” was provided via FedEx, to the Patent Owner
`
`by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K&L Gates – Pittsburgh
`210 Sixth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
