IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`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 ................................................................................. 16 
`Fintiv Factor 4 Favors Denial Due to the Extensive Overlap
`Between the Petitioner’s Invalidity Contentions in the VW
`Parallel Litigation and the Petition ........................................... 18 
`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 ................. 21 
`  GROUND 1 FAILS TO MAKE A THRESHOLD SHOWING OF
`ANTICIPATION FOR IMPROPER RELIANCE UPON THE SAME
`DISCLOSURE FOR MULTIPLE CLAIM ELEMENTS ................... 23 
`  GROUNDS 1 AND 3 FAIL TO MAKE A THRESHOLD SHOWING
`OF ANTICIPATION FOR IMPROPER RELIANCE UPON POSITA
`KNOWLEDGE ................................................................................... 28 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`

`

`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`The Board Should Give No Weight To The Expert Testimony
`Because The Expert Declaration And The Petition Are Near
`Copies ........................................................................................ 29 
`The Board Should Deny Institution Because Petitioner’s
`Anticipation Grounds Lack Particularity .................................. 35 
`  GROUNDS 2 AND 4 FAIL BECAUSE THEY CONTRADICT THE
`ANTICIPATION GROUNDS 1 AND 3 AND FAIL TO PROVIDE A
`SUFFICIENT CASE FOR OBVIOUSNESS ..................................... 36 
`A. 
`Petitioner’s Grounds 2 and 4 Are Irreconcilable With Grounds
`1 and 3, respectively ................................................................. 36 
`The Petition Fails To Consider The Graham Factors In Grounds
`2 And 4 ...................................................................................... 38 
`The Petition Fails To Provide An Adequate Reason To Modify
`or Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success In Grounds
`2 And 4 ...................................................................................... 42
`D. Grounds 2 and 4 Fail to Provide a Sufficient Case For
`Obviousness Because They Are Heavily Dependent On The
`Expert Declaration, Which Should Be Given No
`Weight………………………………………………………...45
`  THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`INSTITUTION .................................................................................... 49 
`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 ......................................................... 49 
`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 ................................................................... 50 
` CONCLUSION..................................................................................... 52 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 (PTAB Mar.
`6. 2019) ............................................................................................................... 35
`Albany Int’l Corp. v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., PGR2021-
`00019, Paper 22 (PTAB Jun. 22, 2021) .............................................................. 43
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20,
`2020) ............................................................................................................passim
`Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00355, Paper 9
`(PTAB Jun. 26, 2015) ........................................................................................ 39
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................... 23-25, 27
`Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9
`(PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) .......................................................................................... 50
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs. LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12
`(PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ....................................................................................... 39
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Egenera, Inc., IPR2017-01341, Paper 10 (PTAB
`Nov. 13, 2017) .................................................................................................... 24
`Cisco Sys. Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLC, IPR2020-
`01227, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2021) ............................................................... 18
`Comcast Cable Comm’ns., LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp., 838 F. App’x
`551 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................... 23
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00045, Paper 92
`(PTAB May 9, 2014) .......................................................................................... 34
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ..................................... 49
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan.
`24, 2019) ............................................................................................................. 50
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp., IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (PTAB May
`15, 2019) ............................................................................................................. 13
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp., IPR2019-00162, Paper 16 (PTAB June
`5, 2019) ............................................................................................................... 51
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sicor Pharms., Inc., 705 F. Supp. 2d 971 (S.D. Ind.
`2010) ................................................................................................................... 28
`Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................... 23
`Google LLC v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC, IPR2020-00722,
`Paper 22 (PTAB Aug. 31, 2020) ........................................................................ 20
`Google LLC, v. Uniloc 2017, IPR2020-00115, Paper 8 (PTAB Mar.
`27, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 12
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................... 37, 39, 41
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................ 49
`Hopkins Mfg. Corp. v. Cequent Performance Prods., Inc., IPR2015-
`00613, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 7, 2015) ................................................................ 24
`HTC Corp. v. Cellular Comm’cns. Equip., LLC, 701 F. App’x 978
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) ........................................................................... 23
`Hunting Titan Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, PGR2020-
`00072, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2021) ................................................................ 35
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................... 39
`In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................... 42-43
`In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................... 42
`Intel Corp. v. VSLI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00142, Paper 17 (PTAB Jun.
`4, 2020) ............................................................................................................... 18
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00583, Paper 22 (PTAB Oct.
`5, 2020) ................................................................................................................. 6
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 36
`Intri-Plex Techs. v. St. Gobain, IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB
`March 23, 2014) .................................................................................................. 39
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Sols., Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8
`(PTAB Sept. 23, 2014) ................................................................................ 34, 48
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................... 37, 43
`Lego Sys., Inc. v. MQ Gaming LLC, IPR2020-01446, Paper 14 (PTAB
`Feb. 16, 2021) ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`LG Elects., Inc. and Hisense Co., Ltd. v. Polaris Powerled Techs.,
`LLC, IPR2020-01337, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2021) ...................................... 24
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ............................................. 41
`
`MED-EL Elekromedizinische Gerate Ges.m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics
`AG, IPR2020-00190, Paper 15 (PTAB Jun. 3, 2020) ......................................... 13
`Moses Lake Indus., Inc. v. Enthone, Inc., IPR2014-00243, Paper 6
`(PTAB Jun. 18, 2014) ......................................................................................... 42
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752,
`Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) .......................................................................... 51
`NVIDIA Corp. v. Tessera Advanced Techs., Inc., IPR2020-00708,
`Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2020) ............................................................................ 16
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 42
`Philip Morris Prods., S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-
`00921, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 16, 2020) .................................................. 12, 19-22
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2020-01184, Paper 11
`(PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) .......................................................................................... 44
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking
`LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB Jun. 16, 2020) ..................................... 11
`SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ....................................................... 49
`Shopkick Inc. v. Novitaz, Inc., IPR2015-00279, Paper 7 (PTAB May
`29, 2015) ............................................................................................................. 41
`Sling TV LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01391, Paper 7 (PTAB
`Feb. 25, 2020) ..................................................................................................... 40
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc., IPR2013-00092,
`Paper 21 (PTAB May 24, 2013) ......................................................................... 43
`Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707 (Fed.
`Cir. 1984) ............................................................................................................ 28
`Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc., IPR2020-00310, Paper 13 (PTAB Jun. 18,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 16
`Supercell Oy v. Gree, Inc., IPR2020-01628, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 17,
`2021) ................................................................................................................... 12
`Travelocity.com L.P. et al v. Cronos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082,
`Paper 10 (PTAB Sept. 15, 2014) ........................................................................ 39
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Elects., Inc., IPR2014-01082,
`Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2014) ........................................................................... 41
`Verizon Business Network Services LLC v. Huawei Techs., IPR2020-
`01291, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2021) .............................................................. 13
`VIZIO v. PolarisLED Techs., IPR2020-00043, Paper 32 (PTAB Sept.
`15, 2020) ....................................................................................................... 37, 38
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 39
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 35
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ......................................................................................... 2, 49, 50
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 50, 51
`MISCELLANEOUS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) ................................................................................................... 49
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) .................................................................................... 36-37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ............................................................................... 29, 34, 44-45
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............................................................................ 36-37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`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
`[Intentionally Left Blank]
`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)
`2011 Hyundai Notice of and Stipulation for Hyundai U.S. Patent No.
`8,166,081 with reference to IPR2021-01267
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`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 9-11 and 23 of U.S. Patent
`
`8,166,081 (“the ’081 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 ’081 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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`reliance on the same disclosure in the alleged prior art for multiple claim elements;
`
`(3) Petitioner’s improper reliance upon POSITA knowledge in its anticipation
`
`grounds; and (4) Petitioner’s obviousness grounds contradict its anticipation
`
`grounds and fail 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 ’081 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
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`was a 2004 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) Innovations Awards Honoree.
`
`With this success at CES and the interest of major automotive and electronics
`
`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 ’081 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
`
`’081 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
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`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 ’081 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)
`
`
`
`
`filing of this Preliminary Response, no other IPR petitions have been filed by
`
`either Hyundai or the remaining defendants.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
` 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)
`
`There are six additional commonly asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,200,203; 8,688,028; 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, Mazda from the other litigations, filed IPR petitions challenging
`
`the ’081 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 after any 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
`
`
`
`3 An additional patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,143,833) is asserted against Volvo.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`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 inter partes review is instituted. Moreover,
`
`Judge Albright is unlikely to move the trial date set for October 3, 2022. Ex. 2001.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`and his view 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00721
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`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.”).
`
`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. RA