IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 
`  BACKGROUND OF STRATOSAUDIO, INC. .................................... 2 
`  THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER
`§ 314(a) to deny institution ................................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Fintiv Factor 1 Favors Denial Because There is No Dispute that
`the District Court is Unlikely to Grant a Stay ............................. 7 
`Fintiv Factor 2 Favors Denial Because the District Court Trial
`Date is Prior to the Board’s Expected Date of Final Written
`Decision .................................................................................... 12 
`Fintiv Factor 3 Favors Denial Because of the Substantial
`Investment into the VW Parallel Litigation by the District Court
`and Parties ................................................................................. 15 
`Fintiv Factor 4 Favors Denial Due to the Extensive Overlap
`Between the Petitioner’s Invalidity Contentions in the VW
`Parallel Litigation and the Petition ........................................... 17 
`Fintiv Factor 5 Favors Denial Because the Same Parties Are
`Involved In This Petition and the VW Parallel Litigation ........ 20 
`Fintiv Factor 6 Favors Denial Because Other Circumstances,
`Including The Merits, Favor Exercising Discretion ................. 20 
`  GROUND 1 FAILS TO MAKE A THRESHOLD SHOWING OF
`ANTICIPATION FOR IMPROPER RELIANCE UPON POSITA
`KNOWLEDGE ................................................................................... 23 
`A. 
`The Board Should Give No Weight To The Expert Declaration
`Because The Expert Declaration And The Petition Are Near
`Copies ........................................................................................ 24 
`The Board Should Deny Institution Because Petitioner’s
`Anticipation Grounds Lack Particularity .................................. 29 
`i
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`  GROUNDS 2 FAILS TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT CASE FOR
`OBVIOUSNESS BECAUSE THEY ARE HEAVILY DEPENDENT
`ON THE EXPERT DECLARATION, WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN
`NO WEIGHT ...................................................................................... 30 
`  THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`INSTITUTION .................................................................................... 35 
`A. 
`The Petition Fails To Show A Reasonable Likelihood That At
`Least One Of The Challenged Claims Is Unpatentable In Any
`Of The Asserted Grounds ......................................................... 35 
`Even If The Board Finds That Petitioner Demonstrates A
`Reasonable Likelihood Of Prevailing With Respect To One Or
`More Claims, The Board Should Still Exercise Its Discretion
`To Deny Institution ................................................................... 36 
`  THE BOARD SHOULD NOT CONSTRUE ANY TERM, BUT IF IT
`DID, PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING SHOULD APPLY ..... 37 
` CONCLUSION..................................................................................... 39 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 (PTAB Mar.
`6. 2019) ............................................................................................................ 29
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20,
`2020) ......................................................................................................... passim
`Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9
`(PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) .................................................................................... 36
`Cisco Sys. Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLC, IPR2020-
`01227, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2021) .......................................................... 17
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00045, Paper 92
`(PTAB May 9, 2014) ...................................................................................... 29
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................. 35
`Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan.
`24, 2019) ......................................................................................................... 36
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp., IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (PTAB May
`15, 2019) ......................................................................................................... 12
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp., IPR2019-00162, Paper 16 (PTAB June
`5, 2019) ........................................................................................................... 37
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sicor Pharms., Inc., 705 F. Supp. 2d 971 (S.D. Ind.
`2010) ............................................................................................................... 23
`Google LLC v. Personalized Media Commc’ns., LLC, IPR2020-
`00722, Paper 22 (PTAB Aug. 31, 2020) ......................................................... 19
`Google LLC, v. Uniloc 2017, IPR2020-00115, Paper 8 (PTAB Mar.
`27, 2020) .......................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................... 35
`Hunting Titan Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, PGR2020-
`00072, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2021) .............................................................. 29
`Intel Corp. v. VSLI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00142, Paper 17 (PTAB Jun.
`4, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 17
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00583, Paper 22 (PTAB Oct.
`5, 2020) ............................................................................................................... 6
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00529,
`Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014) .................................................................. 28, 34
`
`MED-EL Elekromedizinische Gerate Ges.m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics
`AG, IPR2020-00190, Paper 15 (PTAB Jun. 3, 2020) ....................................... 13
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752,
`Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ........................................................................ 37
`NVIDIA Corp. v. Tessera Advanced Techs., Inc., IPR2020-00708,
`Paper 9, (PTAB Sept. 2, 2020) ......................................................................... 16
`Philip Morris Prods., S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-
`00921, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 16, 2020) .......................................... 12, 19, 20, 22
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking
`LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB Jun. 16, 2020) ................................... 10
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ..................................................... 35
`Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707 (Fed.
`Cir. 1984) .......................................................................................................... 23
`Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc., IPR2020-00310, Paper 13 (PTAB Jun. 18,
`2020) ................................................................................................................. 15
`Supercell Oy v. Gree, Inc., IPR2020-01628, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 17,
`2021) ................................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ................................................................................................................. 38
`Verizon Business Network Services LLC v. Huawei Techs., IPR2020-
`01291, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2021) ............................................................ 12
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 29
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 36, 37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) ................................................................................................... 35
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ..................................................................................... 24, 28, 31
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001 E-mail from Court Clerk Setting CMC, Markman Hearing, and Trial
`Date in the Parallel W.D. Tex. Litigations (May 4, 2021)
`
`2002
`
`Volkswagen’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Direct the United
`States District Court for the Western District of Texas to Rule on
`Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Jun. 4, 2021)
`2003 E-mail from W.D. Tex. Court Clerk Denying Request to Stay Pending
`Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (May 17, 2021)
`2004 Transcript of Hearing for Motion to Dismiss/Transfer for Improper
`Venue in Parallel W.D. Tex. Litigations (Jun. 23, 2021)
`
`2005
`
`Interview with Judge Albright on Patent Litigation and Seventh
`Amendment, IAM (Apr. 7, 2020)
`
`2006
`
`Joint Scheduling Order of Parallel W.D. Tex. Litigations (July 15,
`2021)
`2007 Notice of Serving Preliminary Infringement Contentions in Parallel
`W.D. Tex. Litigations (May 13, 2021)
`2008 Hyundai Notice of and Stipulation for Hyundai U.S. Patent No.
`8,688,028 with reference to IPR2021-01303
`2009 Defendants’ Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions Cover Pleading in
`Parallel W.D. Litigations (July 8, 2021)
`2010 Transcript of hearing in ParkerVision v. Intel Corp., 6:20-cv-00108
`(W.D. Tex. September 2, 2020) (J. Albright)
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313, Patent Owner, STRATOSAUDIO, INC.
`
`(“Patent Owner”), submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition for inter
`
`partes review (the “Petition” or “Pet.”) filed by VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`
`AMERICA, INC. (“Petitioner”) challenging claims 11, 14-16, and 18 of U.S.
`
`Patent 8,688,028 (“the ’028 patent”). For the reasons set forth herein, the Petition
`
`for IPR should be denied in its entirety.
`
`With its hastily prepared Petition, Petitioner makes significant missteps and
`
`submits a Petition with fundamental shortcomings, and fails to provide the Board
`
`with basic evidence and analysis required to institute any IPR.1 In this preliminary
`
`response, Patent Owner addresses these missteps and fundamental shortcomings,
`
`including: (1) Petitioner’s failure to address any of the Fintiv factors, all of which
`
`favor denial of institution, despite Petitioner acknowledging that the ’028 patent is
`
`asserted in five separate parallel district court litigations; (2) Petitioner’s improper
`
`
`
`1 If, however, the Board institutes trial on any of the challenged claims, then,
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, Patent Owner will address, in its patent owner’s
`
`response, the numerous substantive errors and shortcomings underpinning each
`
`of Petitioner’s arguments and its purported evidence.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`reliance upon POSITA knowledge in its anticipation grounds; (3) Petitioner’s
`
`heavy reliance on an expert declaration that should be given no weight, and (4)
`
`Petitioner’s failure to provide a sufficient case for obviousness. Any one of these
`
`should be fatal to the Petition.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition fails to establish that the Board should use its
`
`resources to institute a proceeding and fails to show that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood
`
`that Petitioner will prevail
`
`in proving any challenged claim
`
`unpatentable. The Petition should be denied, and no IPR should be instituted under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
` BACKGROUND OF STRATOSAUDIO, INC.
`Patent Owner STRATOSAUDIO, INC. is a start-up company founded in
`
`1999 by lead inventor of the ’028 patent, Kelly Christensen. In the early 2000s,
`
`Patent Owner created a better media-infotainment experience through its
`
`innovative technology in real time interactive data services. Patent Owner’s
`
`technology allows a user to easily obtain and engage with additional information
`
`associated with media content of various broadcast streams. These efforts led to
`
`the creation of the StratosAudio Interactive Symphony Digital IF Radio, which
`
`was a 2004 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) Innovations Awards Honoree.
`
`With this success at CES and the interest of major automotive and electronics
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`companies like Hyundai Autonet and Motorola, Patent Owner continued
`
`innovating and refining its technology over the past twenty years.
`
`Patent Owner has protected its innovative and novel technology through a
`
`set of patents, including the ’208 patent subject to the instant proceeding. Over the
`
`years, several major car manufacturers have incorporated Patent Owner’s
`
`technology into their respective vehicle media console systems. Patent Owner
`
`filed suit in December 2020 against five of these auto-manufacturers, including
`
`Volkswagen (Petitioner), Volvo, Subaru, Mazda, and Hyundai, in the Western
`
`District of Texas (“W.D. Tex.”) for infringement of seven patents, including the
`
`’208 patent. In response, Petitioner has filed a series of insufficient and baseless
`
`Petitions before the Board, while the other defendants pursue the same grounds of
`
`invalidity through litigation. 2
`
`
`
`2 In late July 2021, Hyundai filed three Petitions against three patents asserted
`
`against the defendants in the parallel litigations (U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028; U.S. Patent No. 8,903,307). As of the date of the
`
`filing of this Preliminary Response, no other IPR petitions have been filed by
`
`either Hyundai or the remaining defendants against the ’028 patent.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`For at least the following reasons, the Board should exercise its authority to
`
`deny institution of the Petition.
`
` THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER
`§ 314(A) TO DENY INSTITUTION
`The Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under § 314(a)
`
`because all six of the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of denying institution, as
`
`outlined below. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6
`
`(PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential).
`
`The ’028 patent has been asserted in five litigations in the Western District
`
`of Texas, including one litigation where Petitioner is the defendant.
`
` StratosAudio, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Doc. No.
`
`6:20-cv-01131 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2020) (“VW Parallel Litigation”)
`
` StratosAudio, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC et al, No. 6:20-cv-
`
`01129 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2020)
`
` StratosAudio, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01128
`
`(W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2020)
`
` StratosAudio, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`
`01126 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2020)
`
` StratosAudio, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 6:20-cv-01125
`
`(W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2020)
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`There are six additional commonly asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,166,081; 8,200,203; 8,903,307; 9,294,806; 9,355,405; and 9,584,843) for a total
`
`of seven patents-in-suit in each litigation.3 However, only Petitioner Volkswagen
`
`and Hyundai filed separate petitions, and none of the other defendants including
`
`Volvo, Subaru, and Mazda from the other litigations, filed IPR petitions
`
`challenging the ’028 patent.
`
`The projected deadline for the FWD in this proceeding, if instituted, is
`
`October 27, 2022, which is after the trial dates in the five litigations (October 3,
`
`2022). Moreover, the district court and all parties have already invested significant
`
`resources and will continue to do so through a decision on institution. For
`
`example, Plaintiff StratosAudio, Inc. produced infringement contentions on May
`
`13, 2021, and all defendants produced invalidity contentions on July 8, 2021.
`
`Further, claim construction briefing will conclude on September 28, 2021, the
`
`Markman hearing will be held on October 4, 2021, and fact discovery begins the
`
`following day. Ex. 2006.
`
`The Honorable Judge Alan Albright presides over each litigation and is
`
`unlikely to stay the litigations, even if trial is instituted. Moreover, Judge Albright
`
`is unlikely to move the trial date set for October 3, 2022. Ex. 2001.
`
`
`3 An additional patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,143,833) is asserted against Volvo.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`Instituting this IPR, and any of the other IPRs challenging the other patents
`
`involved in the same parallel litigations, would thus not be an efficient use of the
`
`Board’s resources. Rather, it would be entirely duplicative of the five litigations
`
`and would risk the two tribunals reaching inconsistent results.
`
`Petitioner did not attempt to address Fintiv at all in its Petition and cannot
`
`now allege that Fintiv does not apply because the Board is “bound to follow the
`
`precedential NHK/Fintiv framework.” Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-
`
`00583, Paper 22 at fn6 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2020). Nor can Petitioner allege it could not
`
`have reasonably foreseen that Patent Owner would raise a Fintiv argument because
`
`it did, in fact, foresee it. Petitioner stated in its briefing to the Federal Circuit
`
`concerning the parallel litigation that it was well aware that the Board may deny
`
`institution based on Fintiv in this proceeding.4
`
`Based on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, each of which is analyzed
`
`below, institution of the Petition should be denied.
`
`
`
`4 Petitioner admitted to the Federal Circuit that it “risks a PTAB finding that under
`
`the first five Fintiv factors, the district-court litigation cuts against institution of
`
`Volkswagen’s IPRs.” Ex. 2002 at 18.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`A. Fintiv Factor 1 Favors Denial Because There is No Dispute that
`the District Court is Unlikely to Grant a Stay
`The district court is unlikely to grant a stay of the Volkswagen parallel
`
`litigation pending this PTAB proceeding. In that litigation, Judge Albright has
`
`already twice denied Petitioner’s request for a stay pending its motion to dismiss or
`
`transfer, and no party has requested a stay pending PTAB review. Ex. 2003 (“The
`
`Court will not stay the cases pending rulings on the motions to dismiss/transfer.”);
`
`Ex. 2004, 39:10-13 (VW’s Counsel: “Our understanding from previous
`
`communications from the Court is that the case is going to roll on while the Court
`
`considers the venue motion.” The Court: “It is.”). Given Judge Albright’s record
`
`and correct views on a party’s right to a jury trial, it is highly unlikely that the
`
`district court would grant a stay pending PTAB review. Ex. 2005.
`
`Petitioner is well aware of this and raised this argument in a Petition for
`
`Mandamus to the Federal Circuit, regarding the VW Parallel Litigation, stating:
`
`“[T]he district court appears unlikely ever to issue a stay pending IPR in this case,
`
`so Volkswagen will have to invest in parallel district-court and PTAB litigation.”
`
`Ex. 2002 at 18.
`
`Ample evidence indicates that Judge Albright will deny any request for a
`
`stay, even if the Board grants institution of this proceeding. That evidence
`
`includes Judge Albright’s historical record on the bench, during which he has only
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`granted a stay for a pending IPR when Patent Owner stipulates to the stay. See
`
`e.g., Kuster v. Western Digital Techs., Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00563, Dkt. No. 65 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Mar. 12, 2021) (Albright, J.); Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:19-cv-
`
`00432, Dkt. No. 225 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2020) (Albright, J.). If Petitioner were
`
`to request a stay of the district court proceeding pending inter partes review, Patent
`
`Owner would oppose that request, and would not stipulate to a stay. Under these
`
`circumstances, with Patent Owner opposing, Judge Albright has never granted a
`
`stay to litigation. See Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Industrial Holdings, LLC, No.
`
`6:20-cv-00200, Dkt. No. 28 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2020) (Albright, J.) (denying
`
`motion to stay for pending PGR); Kerr, Dkt. No. 76 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021)
`
`(Albright, J.) (denying motion to stay for instituted PGR); Cont’l Intermodal Grp.
`
`v. Sand Revolution LLC, No. 7:18-cv-00147, Dkt. No. 104 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 22,
`
`2020) (Albright, J.) (denying motion to stay for pending IPR); Multimedia Content
`
`Mgmt. LLC v. Dish Network LLC, No. 6:18-cv-00207, Dkt. No. 73 (W.D. Tex.
`
`May 30, 2019) (Albright, J.) (denying motion to stay for pending IPR).
`
`For example, in Multimedia, Judge Albright denied defendant’s request for a
`
`stay pending PTAB review, citing as reasons: (1) the advanced stages of the
`
`proceeding, which had progressed into fact discovery and (2) a stay would cause
`
`undue prejudice to the plaintiff that is not offset by any potential simplification
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`benefit of a PTAB proceeding. Dkt. No. 73, 4-6 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019)
`
`(Albright, J.). Here, the parties in all five parallel litigations will be in fact
`
`discovery before the Board is expected to make an institution decision. Ex. 2006,
`
`p. 3. Any request for a stay, which Patent Owner would not agree to, would
`
`therefore cause undue prejudice to Patent Owner in the parallel litigations and is
`
`unlikely to be granted.
`
`Moreover, Judge Albright has strong views on a party’s right to a jury trial
`
`and the Seventh Amendment. He has explained his reasoning for having denied
`
`stays pending PTAB decisions: “because I think that people have a constitutional
`
`right to assert their patent. … I think people ought to have a jury trial.” Ex. 2005;
`
`see Cont’l Intermodal Grp., No. 7:18-cv-00147-ADA, Dkt. No. 104 (W.D. Tex.
`
`July 22, 2020) (Albright, J.) (“The Court strongly believes in the Seventh
`
`Amendment.”); Kerr Machine Co., No. 6:20-cv-00200-ADA, Dkt. No. 28 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Aug. 2, 2020) (Albright, J.) (“The Court denies the stay [for pending PGR]
`
`for at least the following reasons: (1) The PTAB has not instituted the PGR. (2)
`
`Even if the PTAB institutes, the Court anticipates that the trial date will occur
`
`before the PGR's final written decision. (3) Allowing this case to proceed to
`
`completion will provide a more complete resolution of the issues including
`
`infringement, all potential grounds of invalidity, and damages. (4) The Court
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`believes in the Seventh Amendment. (5) Plaintiff opposes the stay.”); Kerr
`
`Machine Co., No. 6:20-cv-00200-ADA, Dkt. No. 76 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021)
`
`(Albright, J.) (twice denying stay for PGR, including once after institution, because
`
`“the Court believes in the Seventh Amendment”); Ex. 2005 (Published Interview
`
`of Judge Albright on tending not to stay cases: “I have done that because I think
`
`that people have a constitutional right to assert their patent. I mean, patents are in
`
`the Constitution, the right to a jury trial is in the Constitution.”) and Ex. 2010
`
`(Transcript of September 2, 2020 hearing in ParkerVision v. Intel Corp., 6:20-cv-
`
`00108 at 15-16) (Judge Albright noting that the number of cases he has stayed
`
`pending IPR in the Western District of Texas is zero). Here, Patent Owner has
`
`requested a jury trial in all five of the litigations currently before Judge Albright.
`
`In view of Judge Albright’s record and his views on staying his court cases
`
`pending PTAB review, this case is unlike that in Sand Revolution, because here,
`
`there is plenty of “specific evidence” that should enable the Board to “attempt to
`
`predict how the district court… will proceed.” See Sand Revolution II, LLC v.
`
`Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7
`
`(PTAB Jun. 16, 2020) (non-precedential) (“In the absence of specific evidence, we
`
`will not attempt to predict how the district court… will proceed because the court
`
`may determine whether or not to stay any individual case, including the related
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`one, based on a variety of circumstances and facts beyond our control and to which
`
`the Board is not privy.”). Further, the case here is unlike Sand Revolution II (non-
`
`precedential), because there, patent owner did not cite anything in the district court
`
`record that would suggest that Judge Albright would deny a stay, whereas here,
`
`Judge Albright has already denied a stay, twice.
`
`For these reasons, the VW Parallel Litigation is unlikely to be stayed
`
`pending PTAB review. Thus, factor 1 favors denial.5 See Google LLC, v. Uniloc
`
`2017, IPR2020-00115, Paper 8 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2020) (“Factors 1…weigh[s]
`
`in favor of denying institution of the Petition. . . . There is no evidence that the
`
`district court has granted (or would grant) a stay pending inter partes review.”).
`
`
`
`5 Even if Petitioner argues, and the Board agrees, that factor 1 does not favor
`
`denying institution because neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner has requested a
`
`stay, at most, factor 1 would be neutral. Factor 1 has been considered neutral in
`
`situations where “the district court has not yet granted a stay and the record
`
`does not include any evidence that a stay, if requested, would be granted.”
`
`Supercell Oy v. Gree, Inc., IPR2020-01628, Paper 9 at 7 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2021).
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`B. Fintiv Factor 2 Favors Denial Because the District Court Trial
`Date is Prior to the Board’s Expected Date of Final Written
`Decision
`Factor 2 “looks at the proximity of the district court’s trial date to the
`
`expected statutory deadline for the Board’s final decision.” Philip Morris Prods.,
`
`S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-00921, Paper 9 at 16 (PTAB Nov.
`
`16, 2020). “If the court’s trial date is earlier than the projected statutory deadline
`
`[for the FWD], the Board generally has weighed this fact in favor of exercising
`
`authority to deny institution under NHK.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9.
`
`Here, the VW Parallel Litigation has a trial date of October 3, 2022, which is
`
`earlier than the projected statutory deadline for this IPR, or October 27, 2022. Ex.
`
`2001; Ex. 2006 (Joint Scheduling Order setting trial for October 3, 2022).
`
`The Board “generally take[s] courts’ trial schedules at face value absent
`
`sufficient evidence to the contrary” (Verizon Business Network Services LLC v.
`
`Huawei Techs., IPR2020-01291, Paper 13 at 11 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2021)), and
`
`routinely finds that a court’s trial scheduled to be held before the FWD date favors
`
`denial. See, e.g., E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp., IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 at 6
`
`(PTAB May 15, 2019) (a pre-Fintiv decision denying institution where the jury
`
`trial was scheduled one month prior to FWD). The case here is unlike MED-EL, in
`
`which factor 2 weighed in favor of institution when trial was originally scheduled
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`less than one month prior to the expected FWD date, but the claim construction
`
`hearing was delayed twice by a total of two months. MED-EL Elekromedizinische
`
`Gerate Ges.m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics AG, IPR2020-00190, Paper 15 at 9-12
`
`(PTAB Jun. 3, 2020). Unlike MED-EL, Judge Albright has stated that the
`
`Markman hearing will proceed as scheduled in October 2021, and will not be
`
`delayed. Ex. 2004, 38:10-39:7.
`
`It is unlikely that the court’s trial date will be delayed significantly or at all.
`
`To date, Judge Albright has held five patent trials; while three of those trials were
`
`significantly delayed, it was only due to external crises (e.g., COVID pandemic) or
`
`at plaintiff’s request. VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00057, Dkt. Nos.
`
`160, 346, 426 (W.D. Tex. May 12, 2020) (W.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2020) (W.D. Tex.
`
`Feb. 14, 2021) (Albright, J.) (trial delayed 189 days, citing Covid19 twice, and
`
`then the February 2021 cold wave and electricity crisis in Texas); VLSI Tech. v.
`
`Intel Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00029 Dkt. Nos. 160, 427 (W.D. Tex. May 12, 2020)
`
`(W.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2021) (Albright, J.) (delayed 140 days, citing COVID19 twice
`
`for rescheduling); MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00308, Dkt. Nos.
`
`293, 301, 306 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 15, 2020) (W.D. Tex. Jul. 7, 2020) (W.D. Tex. Aug.
`
`10, 2020) (Albright, J.) (trial delayed 128 days, citing Covid19 thrice). In fact, one
`
`of those trials actually recently took place 7 days before the initial set date, in April
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`2021. ESW Holdings v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00044 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2019)
`
`(Albright, J.). Judge Albright’s most recent trial in May 2021 was only delayed by
`
`21 days. CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00513, Dkt. No. 48
`
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) (Albright, J.). Another trial was delayed by 98 days and
`
`was initially scheduled pre-pandemic, in January 2020; however that delay was
`
`due to the plaintiff’s request to remove the expedited schedule. Diamondback
`
`Inds., Inc. v. Repeat Precision, LLC, No. 6:19-cv-00034, Dkt. No. 60 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Jun. 2, 2019) (Albright, J.)
`
`Judge Albright manages his docket efficiently. For example, he often
`
`promptly enters claim construction orders soon after Markman hearings. See e.g.,
`
`CloudofChange, No. 6:19-cv-00513, Dkt. No. 44 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 10, 2020)
`
`(Albright, J.) (claim construction order signed same day as Markman hearing)
`
`(supplemental claim construction order signed Jul. 15, 2020); WSOU Investments
`
`LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00903, Dkt. No. 89 (W.D. Tex. Jun.
`
`24, 2021) (Albright, J.) (order signed same day); Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel
`
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00523, Dkt. No. 51 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 3, 2021) (Albright, J.)
`
`(same day); Neodron Ltd. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00523,
`
`Dkt. No. 37 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2021) (Albright, J.) (same day).
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00716
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`Here, Judge Albright is proceeding efficiently with the VW Parallel
`
`Litigation, per his normal practice. He has already twice denied Petitioner’s
`
`requests for stay (Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004, 39:10-13), and the parties continue on
`
`schedule. For example, the plaintiff served preliminary infringement contentions
`
`on May 13, 2021, and the defendant served preliminary invalidity contentions on
`
`July 8, 2021, as scheduled. Ex. 2006; Ex. 2007; Ex. 2008. Moreover, claim
`
`construction briefing is scheduled for completion on September 24, 2021 in all five
`
`litigations involving the ’028 patent. Ex. 2006, p. 3. There is no evidence to
`
`suggest the parties will not continue on the appointed schedule.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, factor 2 favors denial of institution.
`
`C. Fintiv Factor 3 Favors Denial Because of the Substantial
`Investment into the VW Parallel Litigation by the District Court
`and Parties
`“[I]f, at the time of the institution decision, the district court has issued
`
`substantive orders related to the patent at issue in the petition, this fact [sic] favors
`
`denial.” Fintiv, IPR2020-0001