UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`PNC BANK, N.A.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`Case IPR2021-01076
`Case IPR2021-01077
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,621,559
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-18
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S PETITION RANKING AND EXPLANATION OF
`MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PETITIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`PNC BANK, N.A.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`Case IPR2021-01076
`Case IPR2021-01077
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,621,559
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-18
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S PETITION RANKING AND EXPLANATION OF
`MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PETITIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petition Ranking
`IPR2021-01076 and IPR2021-01077
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing two petitions for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,621,559 (“’559 patent”). Petitioner respectfully requests the Board
`
`to exercise its discretion to institute both petitions because they are based on
`
`different priority dates and different sets of prior art references. The issues at play
`
`are complex such that, given the different priority dates and prior art references,
`
`Petitioner reasonably requires two petitions to adequately set forth its grounds.
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits this notice of ranking of its petitions pursuant
`
`to the 2019 PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide. Specifically, this paper (A)
`
`ranks the petitions, (B) explains the material differences between the petitions, and
`
`(C) explains why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute both petitions.
`
`II. Ranking of Petitions
`
`Although Petitioner believes that its petitions are each meritorious and
`
`justified, Petitioner requests, at this stage, that the Board consider the petitions in
`
`the following order:
`
`Rank
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition
`
`References
`
`IPR2021-01076
`(“Petition 1”)
`IPR2021-01077
`(“Petition 2”)
`
`Oakes and Maloney
`
`Garcia, Randle, Slater,
`Lev, Watanabe, Aoyama,
`and Byrne
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Petition Ranking
`IPR2021-01076 and IPR2021-01077
`
`III. Petition 1 And Petition 2 Are Materially Different
`
`Petition 1 and Petition 2 are materially different because they are premised
`
`on different priority positions and rely on non-overlapping sets of prior art
`
`references.
`
`1. Different Priority Dates
`
`The ’559 patent is part of a chain of continuation applications claiming
`
`priority to U.S. Application No. 11/591,247 (“’247 Application”), filed October
`
`31, 2006. Petition 1 demonstrates that, despite the priority claim, the ’559 patent
`
`claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than July 28, 2017 because of a
`
`priority break. Specifically, Petition 1 explains that:
`
`
`
`the ’247 Application does not provide written description support for
`
`two limitations in each independent claim of the ’559 patent—(1) “a mobile device
`
`associated with an image capture device” and (2) “second processing circuitry” and
`
`“a second memory”; and
`
`
`
`these two limitations are, at the earliest, supported by an intermediate
`
`patent in the priority chain, filed on July 28, 2017.
`
`Petition 1 sets forth evidence of this break in the chain of priority and
`
`demonstrates, under the priority date of July 28, 2017, that the challenged claims
`
`are invalid.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition 2, on the other hand, demonstrates that, even if the ’559 patent
`
`Petition Ranking
`IPR2021-01076 and IPR2021-01077
`
`claims were entitled to the claimed priority date of October 31, 2006, the claims
`
`are nonetheless invalid. Accordingly, Petition 1 and Petition 2 rely on different
`
`priority dates, and, on that basis alone, are materially different.
`
`2. Different, Non-Overlapping Prior Art References
`
`The two petitions rely on different, non-overlapping sets of prior art
`
`references. In Petition 1, because of the priority break, the patent that issued from
`
`the ’247 Application—U.S. Patent No. 7,873,200 (“Oakes”)—is available as prior
`
`art to the ’559 patent. Accordingly, Petition 1 relies on Oakes and another
`
`reference, Maloney, to demonstrate that the challenged claims are obvious.
`
`Petition 2, on the other hand, relies on prior art references that predate the
`
`claimed priority date of October 31, 2006—Garcia, Randle, Slater, Lev, Watanabe,
`
`Aoyama, and Byrne. As is evident, the two petitions rely on non-overlapping sets
`
`of prior art references, and are thus materially different.
`
`IV. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion To Institute Both Petitions
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the Board to exercise its discretion to
`
`institute both Petition 1 and Petition 2.
`
`The Board frequently institutes multiple petitions when petitions are based
`
`on different priority dates. The 2019 PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`provides “a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`references” as an example of a “circumstance[] in which more than one petition
`
`Petition Ranking
`IPR2021-01076 and IPR2021-01077
`
`may be necessary.” 2019 Consolidated Practice Guide, 59.
`
`Indeed, the PTAB has held that a “dispute” about “the priority date for the
`
`challenged patent... can… justify two petitions.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Acorn Semi LLC, IPR2020-01206, Paper 22, 42 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2021) (instituting
`
`trial on both IPR petitions). In Samsung, the patent-at-issue claimed priority to an
`
`original application filed on August 1, 2006. Petitioner, however, contended the
`
`challenged claims were not entitled to a priority date earlier than February 7, 2011
`
`and filed two petitions, one based on the 2011 priority date and another based on
`
`the claimed 2006 priority date. Id. at 15-16. The Board instituted both petitions,
`
`explaining that the Board was “persuaded the challenges are sufficiently different
`
`and premised on different priority positions that it is appropriate to allow parallel
`
`petitions, so the issues can be addressed separately.” Id. at 42. See also NRG
`
`Energy, Inc. and Talen Energy Corp. v. Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.,
`
`IPR2020-00926, Paper 19 at 26 (PTAB Dec. 2, 2020) (instituting two petitions
`
`premised on different priority dates).
`
`The same is true here. Petition 1 and Petition 2 are premised on the earliest-
`
`supported 2017 priority date and the claimed 2006 priority date, respectively, and
`
`present sufficiently different invalidity challenges based on non-overlapping prior
`
`art references. In view of the material differences and the strength of both
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`petitions, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board to consider both petitions. If
`
`Petition Ranking
`IPR2021-01076 and IPR2021-01077
`
`the Board so desires, both proceedings can be consolidated on a single schedule
`
`with a single oral argument to mitigate any inconvenience or burden of instituting
`
`more than one petition.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute
`
`inter partes review on both petitions.
`
`***
`
`“[A] table to aid in identifying the similarities and difference between
`
`petitions” is provided below. 2019 Consolidated Practice Guide, 60.
`
`
`Ranking
`Priority Date
`Prior Art References
`
`IPR2021-01076
`Rank 1
`July 28, 2017
`Oakes and Maloney
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01077
`Rank 2
`October 31, 2006
`Garcia, Randle, Slater,
`Lev, Watanabe,
`Aoyama, and Byrne
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`Date: July 21, 2021 By:
`David Cavanaugh
`Reg. No. 36,476
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
