`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`CASE: IPR2021-00686
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,491,982
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`F. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 5 
`A. 
`The ’982 Patent ..................................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`Related Proceedings .............................................................................. 6 
`III.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION BECAUSE OF CO-
`PENDING LITIGATION INVOLVING THE ’982 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 ............................................. 11 
`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 ............... 19 
`Factor 6: Other Considerations That Influence the Board’s
`Exercise of Discretion Weigh in Favor of Denying Institution .......... 20 
`G.  Holistic Assessment of Fintiv Factors ................................................. 21 
`IV.  THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED DISCRETIONARILY
`UNDER GENERAL PLASTIC ....................................................................... 23 
`A. 
`Factor 1: Whether the Same Petitioner Previously Filed a
`Petition Directed to the Same Claims of the Same Patent .................. 25 
`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 .................................................. 25 
`Factor 3: Whether at the Time of Filing of the Second Petition
`the Petitioner Already Received the Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`V. 
`
`Response to the First Petition or Received the Board’s Decision
`on Whether to Institute Review of the First Petition .......................... 28 
`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 ..................................... 28 
`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 ................................................................................................... 29 
`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 ........................................................................... 30 
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION BECAUSE THE
`PETITION PRESENTS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ART
`PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY THE OFFICE AND HAS NOT
`DEMONSTRATED A MATERIAL ERROR BY THE OFFICE ................ 32 
`A. 
`Rosener Was Considered in the Original Examination and the
`Petitioner did not Demonstrate a Material Error in the Office’s
`Evaluation of Rosener ......................................................................... 35 
`1. 
`Becton, Dickinson Factor (c) Shows the Asserted Art Was
`Considered During Original Examination ................................ 36 
`Becton, Dickinson Factor (e) Shows the Petition Did Not
`Establish any Error by the Office ............................................. 37 
`The Petition Does Not Provide Any Additional Evidence for
`Becton, Dickinson Factor (f) ..................................................... 42 
`Haupt-749 is Cumulative of Haupt-209 and the Petition Did
`Not Demonstrate a Material Error in the Office’s Consideration
`of Haupt-209 ........................................................................................ 43 
`Seshadri-716 is Cumulative of Seshadri-839 and the Petitioner
`did not Demonstrate a Material Error in the Office’s
`Consideration of Seshadri-839 ............................................................ 44 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`2. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`D.  Hankey is Cumulative of Johnson and Glezerman and the
`Petitioner did not Demonstrate a Material Error in the Office’s
`Consideration of Johnson and Glezerman ........................................... 46 
`1. 
`Becton, Dickinson Factors (a) and (b) Show the Asserted Art
`Is Substantially Similar to and Cumulative of Previously-
`Considered Art .......................................................................... 46 
`Becton, Dickinson Factor (d) Shows the Petitioner’s Reliance
`on Hankey Substantially Mirrors the Examiner’s Application
`of Johnson ................................................................................. 53 
`Dyer is Cumulative of Johnson and the Petitioner did not
`Demonstrate a Material Error in the Office’s Consideration of
`Johnson ................................................................................................ 55 
`Price Does Not Cure the Deficiencies of Rosener, Hankey,
`Haupt-749, Seshadri-716, and Dyer With Respect to Claims 6
`and 11 .................................................................................................. 56 
`VI.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION BECAUSE THE
`PETITION FAILS TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE PETITIONER WILL PREVAIL ON A
`SINGLE CLAIM ........................................................................................... 58 
`A. 
`The Petition Fails to Show that the Rosener-Hankey-Haupt-
`749-Seshadri-716 Combination Satisfies All Elements of Claim
`11 ......................................................................................................... 59 
`The Petition’s Rationales for Combining Seshadri ‘716 and
`Seshadri ‘818 are Conclusory ............................................................. 64 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 67 
`
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312, 1327-1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................... 67
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geraete
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) .......................................... 32, 33
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.,
`IPR2018-01356, Paper 9 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 5, 2019) ..................................... 28, 30
`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) ........................................passim
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00381, Paper 15 (PTAB July 2, 2021) .........................................passim
`Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. Neurelis, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00450, Paper 8 (PTAB Aug. 1, 2019) ........................................... 42, 57
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................passim
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Monarch Networking Sols. LLC,
`IPR2020-01226, Paper 11, 15 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2021) ......................................... 19
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd,
`IPR2020-00122, Paper 15 (PTAB May 15, 2020) ............................................. 12
`Club Champion LLC v. True Spec Golf LLC,
`IPR2019-01569, Paper 9 (PTAB March 17, 2020) ............................................ 31
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`DaVita Inc. v. Virginia Mason Memorial Hospital,
`981 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 40
`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) .............................................. 30
`Google LLC v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC,
`IPR2020-00724, Paper 19 (PTAB Aug. 31, 2020) ............................................... 9
`Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01668, Paper 6 (PTAB April 16, 2019) .............................................. 30
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 7
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2019-01192, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2020) .................................................. 8
`MediaTek Inc. v. Nippon Tel. and Tel. Corp.,
`IPR2020-01607, Paper 12 (PTAB April 2, 2021) ................................................ 9
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 18
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ................................................. 2
`Robert Bosch Tool Corp. v. SD3, LLC,
`IPR2016-01754, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017) ............................................. 56
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) ...................................... 9, 19, 20
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp. Trucking
`LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ......................................... 9, 10
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Seko S.p.A. v. CM2W JSC,
`Case IPR2020-01636, Paper 9 (PTAB January 7, 2021) ................................... 32
`SK Hynix v. Netlist,
`IPR2020-01421, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2021) ............................................. 15
`SK Innovation Co. v. LG Chem, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01240, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2021) .............................................. 12
`Sony Interactive Ent. LLC v. Terminal Reality, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00710, Paper 15 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2020) .............................................. 53
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................... 19
`Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00310, Paper 13 (PTAB Jun. 18, 2020) .............................................. 12
`Verizon Bus. Network Servs. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`IPR2020-01292, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2021) .................................. 14, 15, 20
`Verizon Bus. Network Svs., LLC v. Huawei Tech. Co.,
`IPR2020-01278, Paper 12, 13 (PTAB Jan. 26, 2021) ........................................ 19
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 119 ........................................................................................................ 44
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ........................................................................................................ 30
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .................................................................................................... 8, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .................................................................................................passim
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) ................................................................................................. 30
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a) ............................................................................................... 30
`84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 at 26 (July 16, 2019) ............................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`EXHIBIT LISTING
`Description
`Exhibit
`KOSS-2001 Docket Report, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.) (as of July 21, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2002
`
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 68 (W.D. Tex. April 14, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2003 Claim Construction Order, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 83 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2004
`
`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-2005 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Transfer, Koss Corp. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 76 (W.D. Tex.
`April 22, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2006 Docket Report, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., Case No. 4:20-cv-
`05504-JST (N.D. Cal.) (as of July 15, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2007 Order Granting Motion to Transfer, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`Case No. 4:20-cv-05504-JST, Dkt. 72 (N.D. Cal May 12, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2008 Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 84 (W.D. Tex. June 8, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2009 R. Davis, “Albright Says He’ll Very Rarely Put Cases on Hold for
`PTAB,” Law360, May 11, 2021
`(www.law360.com/articles/1381597/print?section=ip) (accessed
`July 9, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2010 Order Denying Motion to Stay, Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan
`Indus. Holdings, LLC et al., Case No. 6-20-cv-00200-ADA (W.D.
`Tex. Apr. 7, 2021)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`KOSS-2011 Order Governing Proceedings - Patent Case, Judge Albright
`(W.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2012 U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0194209 A1 to Haupt et al. (“Haupt-209”)
`
`KOSS-2013 Defendant Apple Inc.’s Invalidity Contentions, Koss Corp. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-0066-ADA, Jan. 15, 2021 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`
`KOSS-2014 Petition, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00255, November 25,
`2020
`
`KOSS-2015 Petition, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00600, March 7, 2021
`
`KOSS-2016 S. Carlson et al., “Tallying Repetitive Inter Partes Review
`Challenges,”
`Law360,
`Sept.
`14,
`2018
`(www.law360.com/articles/1083158/tallying-repetitive-inter-
`partes-review-challenges) (accessed July 15, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2017 U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0037615 A1 to Glezerman
`
`KOSS-2018 U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0136839 to Seshadri et al. (“Seshadri-839”)
`
`KOSS-2019 Docket Report, Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`00203-DBB-JCB (D. Utah) (as of July 21, 2021)
`
`KOSS-2020 Docket Report, Koss Corp. v. PEAG, LLC d/b/a JLAB Audio,
`Case No. 3:21-cv-01177-CAB-JLB (S.D. Cal.) (as of July 21,
`2021)
`
`KOSS-2021 Exhibit D6 to Defendant Apple Inc.’s Invalidity Contentions,
`Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-0066-ADA, Jan. 15,
`2021 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`KOSS-2022 Exhibit D8 to Defendant Apple Inc.’s Invalidity Contentions,
`Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-0066-ADA, Jan. 15,
`2021 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`KOSS-2023 U.S. Patent 7,343,177 to Seshadri et al. (“Seshadri-177”)
`
`KOSS-2024 Pub. No. 2008/0298606 A1 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”)
`
`KOSS-2025 U.S. Patent 8,190,203
`
`KOSS-2026 U.S. Patent 8,571,544
`
`KOSS-2027 U.S. Patent 8,655,420
`
`KOSS-2028 U.S. Patent 9,049,502
`
`KOSS-2029 U.S. Patent 9,438,987
`
`KOSS-2030 U.S. Patent 9,497,535
`
`KOSS-2031 U.S. Patent 9,729,959
`
`KOSS-2032 U.S. Patent 9,986,325
`
`KOSS-2033 U.S. Patent 10,206,025
`
`x
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Exhibit
`KOSS-2034 U.S. Patent 10,368,155
`
`Description
`
`KOSS-2035 U.S. Patent 10,469,934
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`IPR2021-00686
`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 6-13 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,491,982 (“’982 Patent,”
`
`APPLE-1001).
`
`This is Petitioner’s second IPR petition (“Second Petition”) for the ’982 Patent
`
`following the Petition filed January 4, 2021, IPR2021-00381 (“First Petition”). The
`
`two petitions challenge mutually exclusive sets of claims, but both petitions rely on
`
`substantially the same references, Rosener (APPLE-1004), Hankey (APPLE-1005),
`
`Haupt (APPLE-1020, hereinafter “Haupt-749”), Dyer (APPLE-1006), and Price
`
`(APPLE-1009), in substantially the same combinations. However, the Second
`
`Petition also relies on Seshadri (APPLE-1022, hereinafter “Seshadri-716”) in all
`
`asserted grounds and including an “additional reference,” Seshadri-818 (APPLE-
`
`1023), that is incorporated into Seshadri-716, to challenge the “signal strength
`
`claims which were not covered by the grounds in” the First Petition. Pet. at 10. The
`
`First Petition was instituted on July 2, 2021. Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-
`
`00381, Paper 15 (PTAB July 2, 2021).
`
`Despite the Board’s institution of the First Petition, the Board should deny
`
`institution of this Second Petition for several reasons.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`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 ’982 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-2003. 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-
`
`2004, 8), which is six months before an expected final written decision (“FWD”) if
`
`the IPR is instituted. Thus, there is a substantial risk of conflicting decisions
`
`regarding the validity of the ’982 Patent.
`
`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 filed the Second Petition
`
`on March 22, 2021, more than two months after filing the First Petition (filed January
`
`4, 2021). The combinations of references relied upon for the asserted grounds in the
`
`First Petition and the Second Petition are nearly identical, except that the Second
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`Petition adds Seshadri-716 for all grounds. Compare First Petition (IPR2021-
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`00381) at 1-2 to the Second Petition (IPR2021-00686) at 1-2. Petitioner’s purported
`
`justification for this Second Petition is that it “advances additional references
`
`(Seshadri [-716], Seshadri-818), in conjunction with the prior art from [the First
`
`Petition], with the intent of demonstrating the unpatentability of dependent claims
`
`6-13 (i.e., the ‘signal strength claims’), which were not covered by the grounds in
`
`IPR2021-00381.” Pet. at 10.
`
`The First Petition, however, could have easily challenged claims 6-13 in view
`
`of Seshadri-716 and Seshadri-818. In other words, both Seshadri-716 and Seshadri-
`
`818 easily could have—and reasonably should have—been raised against claims 6-
`
`13 in the First Petition, which would have eliminated the need for the Second
`
`Petition. Petitioner even acknowledges that the addition in the Second Petition to
`
`deal with the eight claims challenged in the Second Petition is “concise.” Pet. at 10.
`
`A factor-by-factor analysis of the General Plastic factors below shows that the
`
`Second Petition should be denied because it “frustrate[s] the purpose of the [AIA]
`
`as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.” General Plastic, at
`
`19.
`
`Third, the Board should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Ground
`
`1A relies on four references—Rosener, Hankey, Haupt-749, and Seshadri-716. With
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`the exception of Hankey, the teachings in these references were considered by the
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`examiner during original examination. Grounds 1A(i), 1B, and 1B(i) merely add
`
`Dyer and/or Price. The relied-upon teachings in Hankey, Dyer, and Price, however,
`
`are cumulative to other references considered by the examiner. Therefore,
`
`substantially the same art was considered by the Office. The Petition also fails to
`
`show that the examiner committed a material error in the original examination of the
`
`’982 Patent and instead mischaracterized the examiner’s statements in the Notice of
`
`Allowance in a way that is inconsistent with the record and contrary to standard logic
`
`principles. Under these circumstances, it is not an efficient use of the Board’s
`
`resources to institute this IPR.
`
`Finally, the Board should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because
`
`the Petition fails to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail on at least one challenged claim. The Petition fails to show that the Rosener-
`
`Hankey-Haupt-749-Seshadri-716 combination and the Rosener-Hankey-Haupt-749-
`
`Seshadri-716-Dyer combination satisfy all elements of claims 6 and 11.
`
`Specifically, the combinations fail to disclose or suggest “transition … based on, at
`
`least in part, a signal strength for the second wireless communication link.” APPLE-
`
`1001, 18:3-7 and 18:31-35. The Petition also provides a conclusory rationale for
`
`combining particular embodiments in the Seshadri references, i.e., Seshadri-716 and
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`Seshadri-818, and fails to adequately explain how the embodiment of Seshadri-818
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`is interchangeable with the embodiment of Seshadri-716 or why the skilled person
`
`in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of these different
`
`embodiments.
`
`These reasons are independent and the Board can deny institution for any of
`
`these reasons.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’982 Patent
`The ’982 Patent includes twenty (20) claims, of which claim 1 is the sole
`
`independent claim. Claim 1 is directed to a system that comprises headphones and
`
`a mobile, digital audio player (“DAP”). The DAP comprises a wireless transceiver
`
`for transmitting digital audio content to the headphones wirelessly. APPLE-1001,
`
`18:8-40.
`
`Dependent claims 6-13 are the Challenged Claims in the present Petition.
`
`Claims 6 and 11 depend from claim 1 and both recite: that the DAP is a first digital
`
`audio source; the system further comprises a second digital audio player that is
`
`different from the first digital audio player; and the headphones transition to play
`
`digital audio content received wirelessly from the second digital audio source via a
`
`second wireless communication link based on, at least in part, a signal strength for
`
`the second wireless communication link. APPLE-1001, 18:65-19:35. Claim 11
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`depends directly from claim 1, whereas claim 6 has intervening claims 4 and 5.
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`Claims 7-10 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 6. Claims 12-13 depend,
`
`directly or indirectly, from claim 11.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Patent Owner is asserting the ’982 Patent, along with four other patents,
`
`against Petitioner in the Texas Litigation. KOSS-2001; KOSS-2002; KOSS-2003;
`
`APPLE-1014. Petitioner filed two IPRs for each of the five patents asserted against
`
`Petitioner in the Texas Litigation. IPR2021-00255; IPR2021-00305; IPR2021-
`
`00381 (Petitioner’s First Petition for the ’982 Patent); IPR2021-00546; IPR2021-
`
`00592;
`
`IPR2021-00600;
`
`IPR2021-00626;
`
`IPR2021-00679;
`
`IPR2021-00686
`
`(Petitioner’s Second Petition and the present Petition for the ’982 Patent); and
`
`IPR2021-00693. The Board instituted the IPRs for IPR2021-00255 and IPR2021-
`
`000305 on June 3, 2021, and instituted the IPR for IPR2021-00381 (for the ’982
`
`Patent) on July 2, 2021. IPR2021-00255, Paper 22; IPR2021-00305, Paper 14;
`
`IPR2021-00381, Paper 15. The Board has not rendered institution decisions yet in
`
`the other IPRs.
`
`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-2004, 8. The district court already held a Markman hearing on April 23, 2021
`
`and issued the claim construction ruling on June 2, 2021. KOSS-2001, 13 (Dkt. 58),
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`15 (Dkt. 72), 16 (Dkt. 83); KOSS-2003. The district court also denied Petitioner’s
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`motion to transfer the Texas Litigation to the Northern District of California
`
`(“NDCal”). KOSS-2005.
`
`Petitioner filed a declaratory judgement action pertaining to the five asserted
`
`patents (including the ’982 Patent) in the NDCal. KOSS-2006. The district court in
`
`the NDCal granted Patent Owner’s motion to transfer the NDCal case to the WDTX.
`
`KOSS-2007. The litigants recently filed a motion in the WDTX to consolidate
`
`Patent Owner’s case and the declaratory judgment action before Judge Albright in
`
`the WDTX. KOSS-2008.
`
`Petitioner recently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from the Federal
`
`Circuit directing the WDTX district court to transfer the Texas Litigation to the
`
`NDCal. See In re Apple, Case No. 21-147 (Fed. Cir.). The Federal Circuit has not
`
`yet ruled on the petition.
`
`Patent Owner is also asserting the ’982 Patent against other parties
`
`(Skullcandy and JLab Audio), but no trial date has been set in those cases. Papers 6
`
`and 9; KOSS-2019; KOSS-2020.
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION BECAUSE OF CO-
`PENDING LITIGATION INVOLVING THE ’982 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); 35 U.S.C. §
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`314(b) (“Director shall determine whether to institute an inter partes review ….”);
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`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 ….”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b). The Board has denied institution “to minimize the duplication
`
`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 FWD; (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
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`factors”). Id. at 5–15.
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`The Fintiv factors collectively justify denial of the Petition because the ’982
`
`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.;
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 at 18
`
`(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
`When a Petitioner represents it will move to stay a district court lawsuit if
`
`institution is granted, the first Fintiv factor should be viewed as neutral. Sand
`
`Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp. Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393,
`
`Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020); MediaTek Inc. v. Nippon Tel. and Tel. Corp.,
`
`IPR2020-01607, Paper 12 at 12 (PTAB April 2, 2021) (“Petitioner represents it will
`
`move to stay the District Court Lawsuit if institution is granted but does not know
`
`how the District Court will rule … [t]hus, this factor should be viewed as neutral.”).
`
`Petitioner did not represent that it will move to stay the Texas Litigation if
`
`institution is granted, and instead merely characterizes a potential stay of the Texas
`
`Litigation as “appropriate.” Pet. at 12. As of the filing of this POPR, the Board
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`instituted IPRs for three other patents involved in the Texas Litigation (see Apple
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`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)), yet Petitioner has not moved to stay the Texas Litigation
`
`in light of those institutions. KOSS-2001.
`
`Although the Board “will not attempt to predict how the district court in the
`
`related district court litigation will proceed because the court may determine whether
`
`or not to stay any individual case,” Sand Revolution, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7,
`
`here, such a prediction is not necessary. Petitioner has not expressed an intention to
`
`stay the Texas Litigation. Absent an affirmative representation to move to stay the
`
`Texas Litigation, the first Fintiv factor weighs in favor of denying institution or,
`
`alternatively, should be viewed as merely neutral.
`
`Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the presiding judge, Judge Albright, in the
`
`Texas Litigation would grant such a motion. During his two and a half years on the
`
`bench, Judge Albright, by his own admission, has only put “one or two” cases on
`
`hold so that the Board can review the patent at issue, absent a joint motion to stay.
`
`KOSS-2009. Judge Albright has explained that he granted those “one or two”
`
`motions to stay because the plaintiff had earlier sued other defendants on the same
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`patent in a different district and those other defendants had their petitions instituted,
`
`IPR2021-00686
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`such that IPRs were well underway by the time patent owner filed the later
`
`complaints in the Western District of Texas. Id. 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-2004, 6-7), which, according to Judge
`
`Albright, in