`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`CASE: IPR2021-00680
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,469,934
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply in Support of Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`Because the trial in the related “Apple Litigation” (Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA W.D. Tex.) will take place six months before the
`
`projected final decision date in this IPR if the trial is instituted, Petitioner’s Reply
`
`(Paper 11) downplays the impact of Apple Litigation on Board’s assessment of
`
`whether it would be efficient for the Board to institute the IPR. In fact, that case is
`
`critically important and Petitioner’s arguments, because they avoid that critical fact,
`
`should not be found persuasive.
`
`The Board has denied discretionarily institution of post-grant proceedings
`
`under similar circumstances. In TCO AS v. NCS Multistage Inc., PGR2020-0077,
`
`Paper 16 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2021), the patent-at-issue was involved in several
`
`litigations, including the “Nine Litigation” and the “TCO Litigation.” The petitioner
`
`was a party to the TCO Litigation, which was “at a nascent stage” and would not
`
`have a trial before the projected final written decision date. TCO, Paper 16 at 17.
`
`Petitioner, however, was not a party to the Nine Litigation, in which the trial was
`
`scheduled to take place four months before the projected final decision date. Id. at
`
`11. Under these circumstances, including the overlap between the asserted grounds
`
`in the petition and the validity grounds litigated in the Nine Litigation, the Board
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply in Support of Preliminary Response
`
`
`denied institution. Id. as 23.1
`
`The present case is remarkably similar to the TCO case and institution should
`
`be denied for analogous reasons. Although the trials in the Bose, Skullcandy and
`
`Plantronics matters are unlikely to occur prior to the projected final decision date if
`
`the IPR is instituted (like the TCO Litigation in the TCO case), the trial in the Apple
`
`Litigation is scheduled to take in place in April 2022, which is six months before the
`
`projected final decision date (like the Nine Litigation in the TCO case). In fact, there
`
`is more certainty now about the likelihood of the April 2022 trial in the Apple
`
`Litigation given that on August 4, 2021, the Federal Circuit denied Apple’s
`
`mandamus petition to transfer the Apple Litigation from the Western District of
`
`Texas to the Northern District of California. KOSS-2033. Thus, the Apple
`
`Litigation will be not be transferred.
`
`Also like the TCO case, there is substantial overlap between the validity issues
`
`
`1 See also Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Estech Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00332, Paper 11 (PTAB July
`
`7, 2021) and Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Estech Sys., Inc., IPR2021-00333, Paper 12 (PTAB
`
`July 7, 2021) (institution denied in related IPRs under Fintiv where petitioner was
`
`not a party to related litigations, although there was “overlap” between the
`
`defendants in the related litigations and real parties in interest in the IPRs).
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply in Support of Preliminary Response
`
`
`raised in the Apple Litigation and asserted grounds in the Petition. While Petitioner
`
`challenges seventeen claims that are not presently asserted in the Apple Litigation
`
`(Paper 11 at 4), there are thirty claims that overlap between the two proceedings
`
`(claims 1-8, 11-13, 15-22, 36-41 and 58-62), including both independent claims
`
`(claims 1 and 58) of the ’934 Patent. See KOSS-2023 at 2 (listing asserted claims
`
`of ’934 Patent in Apple Litigation).
`
`Petitioner accuses Patent Owner of “speculating” that Apple will rely on
`
`Rezvani-875 (BOSE-1016) in the Apple Litigation because it is one of more than
`
`200 references cited in Apple’s invalidity contentions. Paper 11 at 5 (citing KOSS-
`
`2030). However, Apple’s invalidity contentions covered five patents (including the
`
`’934 Patent). KOSS-2030 at 2. Also, Rezvani-875 was one (and the first) of only
`
`four references for which Apple provided charts for the ’934 Patent. KOSS-2030 at
`
`25 (Exhibit C1-C4 to Apple’s invalidity contentions are Apple’s charts for the ’934
`
`Patent); KOSS-2022 at 1 (Exhibit C1 for Apple’s contentions was a chart for
`
`Rezvani-875). Because of the significant overlap between the validity issues raised
`
`in the two matters, and because the Apple Litigation’s jury verdict is highly likely
`
`to be six months prior to the expected final decision date if the IPR is instituted,
`
`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.
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply in Support of Preliminary Response
`
`
`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).
`
`Petitioner’s other arguments are similarly unpersuasive.
`
`Factor 1: Petitioner accuses Patent Owner of offering no specific evidence
`
`that the Apple Litigation will not be stayed. The specific evidence includes (i) that
`
`Apple still has not sought a stay, despite the fact that Board instituted IPRs for three
`
`of the five patents involved in the Apple Litigation (Paper 10 at 10) and (ii) the Apple
`
`Litigation does not satisfy the conditions under which the presiding judge in the
`
`Apple Litigation will stay a case pending an IPR. KOSS-2019.
`
`Factors 2 and 5: Petitioner asserts that Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`
`IPR2020-00441, Paper 13 (July 17, 2020) supports that the lack of a trial date in the
`
`Bose, Skullcandy and Plantronics cases “weighs significantly against” the Board
`
`exercising its discretion to deny institution. Paper 11, 2. The Google case is
`
`irrelevant, however, because there was no other litigation involving the patent that
`
`was going to trial prior to the projected final written decision date. Google, Paper
`
`13, 35 (only litigation involved petitioner). That is not the case here because the
`
`Apple Litigation is going to trial six months before the projected final written
`
`decision date.
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply in Support of Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`Factor 3: Petitioner admits that the parties and court in the Apple Litigation
`
`have invested heavily in the litigation, but minimizes that effort because “much work
`
`remains.” Paper 11, 3. This argument is unavailing for two reasons. First, the key
`
`is the investment by the time of the institution decision. Fintiv, IPR2020-00019,
`
`Paper 11, 9-10. Second, even though much work remains in the Apple Litigation,
`
`that substantial amount of work will be completed by April 2022. KOSS-2017.
`
`Because the Apple Litigation is unlikely to be stayed or transferred, the remaining
`
`work will be completed in early 2022, such that instituting the IPR will lead to
`
`duplicative costs. See Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 10.
`
`Factor 4: Bose says it will be harmed if institution is denied. Paper 11, 4.
`
`Harm to the petitioner, however, is not the relevant inquiry under the Fintiv analysis.
`
`Instead, the issue is whether institution of the trial would be an efficient use of Board
`
`resources. See Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 12.
`
`Factor 6: The weakness of the Petition’s merits, as explained in Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 10, 23-47), also militates in favor of
`
`discretionary denial.
`
`For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution.
`
`Dated: August 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply in Support of Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00680
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply in Support of Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(E)(4)
`
`I hereby certify that on August 23, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`