`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Fintiv Factor 1 Favors Denial Because The District Court Has
`Not Granted A Stay And Is Unlikely To Do So If The Board
`Institutes Trial ............................................................................. 6
`Fintiv Factor 2 Favors Denial Because The District Court Trial
`Date Is Several Months Before The Board’s Statutory Deadline
`For Final Written Decision ....................................................... 12
`Fintiv Factor 3 Favors Denial Because Of The Substantial
`Investment Into The Hyundai 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
`Hyundai Parallel Litigation And The Petition .......................... 18
`Fintiv Factor 5 Favors Denial Because The Same Parties Are
`Involved In This Petition And The Hyundai Parallel Litigation
` ................................................................................................... 23
`Fintiv Factor 6 Favors Denial Because Other Circumstances,
`Including The Merits, Favor Exercising Discretion ................. 23
`
`A. Ground 1 Fails To Make A Threshold Showing That Claims 9,
`15, And 23 Are Obvious ........................................................... 27
`Noreen Alone Does Not Render Claim 9 Obvious ........ 27
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Element 9[a]: a first receiver module configured to
`receive at least a first media content and data
`enabling the identification of a specific instance of
`the first media content from a first broadcast
`medium ................................................................. 29
`Element 9[b]: a second receiver module configured
`to receive at least a second media content and
`uniquely identifying data specific to at least the
`second media content, the second media content
`received discretely from the first media content .. 31
`Element 9[c]: an output system configured to
`present concurrently the first media content and
`the second media content on an output of the first
`receiver module or the second receiver module ... 33
`Element 9[e]: a transmitting module configured to
`transmit a response message having at least the
`uniquely identifying data specific to the second
`media content to a computer server ..................... 34
`Noreen Alone Does Not Render Claim 15 Obvious ...... 35
`Noreen Alone Does Not Render Claim 23 Obvious ...... 36
`Ground 2 Fails To Make A Threshold Showing That Claims 9,
`15, And 23 Are Obvious ........................................................... 37
`Noreen In View of Crosby Does Not Render Claim 9
`Obvious ........................................................................... 37
`a.
`Element 9[b]: a second receiver module configured
`to receive at least a second media content and
`uniquely identifying data specific to at least the
`second media content, the second media content
`received discretely from the first media content .. 37
`Element 9[e]: a transmitting module configured to
`transmit a response message having at least the
`
`b.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`uniquely identifying data specific to the second
`media content to a computer server ..................... 39
`Noreen In View Of Crosby Does Not Render Claims 15
`And 23 Obvious .............................................................. 39
`Ground 3 Fails To Make A Threshold Showing That Claims 10
`And 11 Are Obvious In View Of Noreen In Combination With
`Crosby And Ellis-2002 ............................................................. 39
`D. Ground 4 Fails To Make A Threshold Showing That Claims 9-
`11, 15 And 23 Are Obvious Over Ellis-2005 Alone ................ 40
`Ellis-2005 Alone Does Not Render Claim 9 Obvious ... 40
`a.
`Element 9[a]: a first receiver module configured to
`receive at least a first media content and data
`enabling the identification of a specific instance of
`the first media content from a first broadcast
`medium ................................................................. 40
`Element 9[b]: a second receiver module configured
`to receive at least a second media content and
`uniquely identifying data specific to at least the
`second media content, the second media content
`received discretely from the first media content .. 42
`Element 9[e]: a transmitting module configured to
`transmit a response message having at least the
`uniquely identifying data specific to the second
`media content to a computer server ..................... 44
`Ellis-2005 Alone Does Not Render Claim 15 Obvious . 45
`Ellis-2005 Alone Does Not Render Claims 10, 11 And 23
`Obvious ........................................................................... 45
`Ground 5 Fails To Make A Threshold Showing That Claims 9-
`11, 15 And 23 Are Obvious Over Ellis-2005 In View Of
`Crosby ....................................................................................... 46
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`Ellis-2005 In View Of Crosby Does Not Render Claim 9
`Obvious ........................................................................... 46
`a.
`Element 9[b]: a second receiver module configured
`to receive at least a second media content and
`uniquely identifying data specific to at least the
`second media content, the second media content
`received discretely from the first media content .. 46
`Ellis-2005 In View Of Crosby Does Not Render Claims
`10, 11, 15 And 23 Obvious ............................................. 48
`F. The Expert Declaration Should Be Given No Weight – It Is A Near
`Copy Of The Petition And Fails To Disclose Underlying Facts
`Or Data ...................................................................................... 49
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Show A Reasonable Likelihood That At
`Least One Of The Challenged Claims Is Unpatentable In Any
`Of The Asserted Grounds ......................................................... 53
`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 ................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ......................................passim
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................... 48, 49
`Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P.,
`IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) ................................................ 55
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Egenera, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01341, Paper 10 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2017) ............................................. 49
`Cisco Sys. Inc. v. Monarch Networking Sols. LLC,
`IPR2020-01227, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2021) ............................................... 18
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp.,
`838 F. App’x 551 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................... 48
`Cont’l Intermodal Grp. v. Sand Revolution LLC,
`No. 7:18-cv-00147, Dkt. No. 104 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 22, 2020) (Albright, J.) ..... 7, 9
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.,
`IPR2013-00045, Paper 92 (PTAB May 9, 2014) ............................................... 53
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 54
`Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) ................................................ 55
`Diamondback Indus., Inc. v. Repeat Precision, LLC,
`No. 6:19-cv-00034, Dkt. No. 60 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2019) (Albright, J.) ......... 14
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (PTAB May 15, 2019) ............................................. 12
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00162, Paper 16 (PTAB June 5, 2019) ............................................... 56
`Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co.,
`96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 48
`ESW Holdings v. Roku, Inc.,
`No. 6:19-cv-00044, Dkt Nos. 48, 139, 165 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J.) .............. 13
`Google LLC v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC,
`IPR2020-00722, Paper 22 (PTAB Aug. 31, 2020) ............................................. 22
`Google LLC, v. Uniloc 2017,
`IPR2020-00115, Paper 8 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2020) ......................................... 11, 25
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................ 54
`Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., Aruba Networks, LLC v. Q3 Networking LLC,
`IPR2021-00754, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 6076 (PTAB Oct. 8, 2021) ................ 20
`Hopkins Mfg. Corp. v. Cequent Performance Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00613, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 7, 2015) ................................................. 49
`HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC,
`701 F. App’x 978 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 48
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00583, Paper 22 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2020) .................................................. 6
`Intel Corp. v. VSLI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00142, Paper 17 (PTAB June 4, 2020) ............................................... 18
`Jackel Int’l Ltd. v. Mayborn USA, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00979, Paper 21 (PTAB May 20, 2016) ............................................. 32
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`No. 6:20-cv-00200, Dkt. No. 28, 76
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2020) (Albright, J.) ..................................................... 7, 9, 10
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014) .............................................. 53
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`Kirsch Rsch. and Dev., LLC v. IKO Indus., Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00317-ADA, Dkt. No. 81 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021) ....................... 8
`Kuster v. W. Digit. Techs., Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00563, Dkt. No. 65 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2021) (Albright, J.) ......... 7
`Lego Sys., Inc. v. MQ Gaming LLC,
`IPR2020-01446, Paper 14 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2021) .............................................. 49
`LG Elecs., Inc. and Hisense Co., Ltd. v. Polaris PowerLED Techs., LLC,
`IPR2020-01337, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2021) ............................................... 49
`MED-EL Elekromedizinische Gerate Ges.m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics AG,
`IPR2020-00190, Paper 15 (PTAB June 3, 2020) ............................................... 13
`Multimedia Content Mgmt. LLC v. Dish Network LLC,
`No. 6:18-cv-00207, Dkt. No. 73 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019) (Albright, J.) ......... 8
`MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc.,
`No. 6:18-cv-00308, Dkt. Nos. 293, 301, 306 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J.) ........... 14
`NetApp, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2017-01195, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 12, 2017) ................................................ 25
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ............................................... 56
`NVIDIA Corp. v. Tessera Advanced Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00708, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2020) ................................................. 16
`Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:19-cv- 00432, Dkt. No. 225 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2020) (Albright, J.) ...... 7
`Philip Morris Prods., S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00921, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 16, 2020) ............................. 12, 22, 23, 25
`Profectus Tech. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:20-cv-00101, Dkt. Nos. 63, 182 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J.) ..................... 13
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Clear Imaging Rsch., LLC,
`IPR2020-01399, Paper 13 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2021) ................................................ 20
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ............................................. 10
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .................................................................................... 1, 54
`Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00310, Paper 13 (PTAB June 18, 2020) ............................................. 16
`Supercell Oy v. Gree, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01628, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2021) ................................................ 11
`Verizon Bus. Network Servs. LLC v. Huawei Techs.,
`IPR2020-01291, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2021) .............................................. 12
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00057, Dkt. Nos. 160, 346, 426 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J.) ........... 14
`VLSI Tech. v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00029 Dkt. Nos. 160, 427 (W.D. Tex.) (Albright, J.) ................... 14
`Volkswagen Gr. of Am., Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc.,
`IPR2021-01267, Paper 16 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2021) .............................................. 24
`
`
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) ................................................................................................... 54
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) .......................................................................... 37, 40, 47, 49
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 53
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................ 37, 40, 47, 49
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .........................................................................1, 2, 25, 54, 55, 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001 Defendants’ Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions Cover Pleading in
`Parallel W.D. Litigations (July 8, 2021)
`2002 Third Proposed Amended Joint Scheduling Order of Parallel W.D. Tex.
`Litigations (September 15, 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 in ParkerVision v. Intel Corp., 6:20-cv-00108
`(W.D. Tex. September 2, 2020) (J. Albright))
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`
`Interview with Judge Albright on Patent Litigation and Seventh
`Amendment, IAM (Apr. 7, 2020)
`
`Minute Entry regarding Markman Hearing, StratosAudio, Inc. v.
`Hyundai Motor America, 6:20-cv-01125 (W.D. Tex. September 28,
`2021)
`
`Order Denying Hyundai’s Motion to Dismiss, StratosAudio, Inc. v.
`Hyundai Motor America, 6:20-cv-01125 (W.D. Tex. September 17,
`2021) (J. Albright))
`
`StratosAudio, Inc.’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions,
`StratosAudio, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America, 6:20-cv-01125 (W.D.
`Tex. May 13, 2021)
`
`StratosAudio, Inc.’s Supplemental Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, StratosAudio, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America, 6:20-cv-
`01125 (W.D. Tex. September 27, 2021)
`
`Hyundai Motor America’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to
`Plaintiff’s Complaint for Patent Infringement, Jury Trial Demanded,
`6:20-cv-01125 (W.D. Tex. October 1, 2021)
`
`ix
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`2011 Minute Order from Discovery Hearing, StratosAudio, Inc. v. Hyundai
`Motor America, 6:20-cv-01125 (W.D. Tex. October 7, 2021)
`2012 Email from Eric Lucas to Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Volkswagen
`Stipulation regarding IPR Grounds (September 3, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner, STRATOSAUDIO, INC. (“Patent Owner”), submits this
`
`
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition for inter partes review (the “Petition” or
`
`“Pet.”) filed by HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA (“Petitioner”) challenging claims
`
`9-11, 15 and 23 of U.S. Patent 8,166,081 (“the ’081 patent”). The Petition should
`
`be denied pursuant to the Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and for
`
`Petitioner’s failure to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted
`
`ground. In light of SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), even if the
`
`Petitioner has made the required threshold showing for some limited claims or
`
`grounds (which is not the case), the Board, in its discretion, should deny institution
`
`under § 314(a) on all challenged claims and grounds in the Petition.
`
` 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
`
`was a 2004 Consumer Electronics Show (“CES”) Innovations Awards Honoree.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`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
`
`Hyundai (Petitioner), Volvo, Subaru, Mazda, and Volkswagen, 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 Petitioner and the other defendants pursue the
`
`same grounds of invalidity through litigation.
`
`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 discretionary denial of
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`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. Hyundai Motor America, No. 6:20-cv-
`
`01125 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2020) (the “Hyundai Parallel
`
`Litigation”)
`
` StratosAudio, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 6:20-
`
`cv-01131 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2020)
`
` 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)
`
`The five litigations are not formally consolidated, but the Court has required the
`
`five defendants to file joint invalidity contentions and participate in a single
`
`Markman hearing with only one brief for all defendants. See EX2001.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`There are five additional commonly asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`
`
`8,688,028; 8,903,307; 9,294,806; 9,355,405; and 9,584,843)1 for a total of six
`
`patents-in-suit in each litigation.2 Petitioner and Volkswagen filed separate IPR
`
`petitions against the challenged claims of the ’081 patent. None of the other
`
`defendants, including Volvo, Subaru, and Mazda, filed IPR petitions challenging
`
`the ’081 patent.
`
`The projected deadline for the final written decision in this proceeding, if
`
`instituted, is January 30, 2023, which is nearly four months after the trial dates in
`
`the five litigations (October 3, 2022). The district court and all parties have
`
`already invested significant resources into the district court litigations, and will
`
`continue to do so after a decision on institution. For example, Patent Owner
`
`produced
`
`infringement contentions on May 13, 2021 and supplemental
`
`infringement contentions on September 27, 2021. The defendants, including
`
`Petitioner, produced invalidity contentions on July 8, 2021. In addition, the Court
`
`denied Hyundai’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or transfer on September
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner originally asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,200,203 against the five
`
`defendants, but has since dropped its assertion of that patent.
`
`2 An additional patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,143,833) is asserted against Volvo.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`17, 2021, claim construction briefing has concluded, and the Court held a
`
`Markman hearing on September 28, 2021, during which the Judge ruled on claim
`
`construction. Fact discovery began the same day.
`
`The Honorable Judge Alan Albright presides over each litigation and is
`
`unlikely to stay the litigations, even if inter partes review is instituted. The trial
`
`date is set for October 3, 2022. EX2002. Judge Albright is unlikely to move this
`
`date.
`
`Instituting this IPR, and any of the other IPRs challenging the other patents
`
`involved in the same parallel litigation, would not be an efficient use of the
`
`Board’s resources. Rather, it would be duplicative of the five litigations and would
`
`risk the two tribunals reaching inconsistent results.
`
`The Fintiv factors seek to “balance considerations such as system
`
`efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” See Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper
`
`11 at 5. The factors are:
`
`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 final written decision;
`
`3.
`
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`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.
`
`See id. at 6. The Board is “bound to follow the precedential NHK/Fintiv
`
`framework.” Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00583, Paper 22 at 10 n.6
`
`(PTAB Oct. 5, 2020).
`
`A holistic review of the Fintiv factors, each of which is analyzed below,
`
`warrants that the Board exercise its discretion to deny instituting trial in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`A. Fintiv Factor 1 Favors Denial Because The District Court Has Not
`Granted A Stay And Is Unlikely To Do So If The Board Institutes
`Trial
`The district court is unlikely to grant a stay of the Hyundai Parallel
`Litigation if the Board institutes trial in this IPR. In that litigation, Judge Albright
`has already denied Petitioner’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or transfer,
`and no party has requested a stay pending the Board’s review. EX2003 (“The
`Court will not stay the cases pending rulings on the motions to dismiss/transfer.”);
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`EX2002 at 2 n.1 (“[T]he Court stated on May 17, 2021 via email: ‘The Court will
`not stay the cases pending rulings on the motions to dismiss/transfer.’”). Given
`Judge Albright’s record and his view on a party’s right to a jury trial, it is highly
`unlikely that the district court would grant a stay if the Board institutes trial.
`EX2005.
`To the contrary, evidence exists indicating that Judge Albright will deny
`any request for a stay, even if the Board granted institution of this proceeding.
`Judge Albright’s record on the bench shows he has only once granted a stay for a
`pending IPR where a patent owner opposed the stay. Typically, Judge Albright
`has only granted such stays if they are unopposed or stipulated to. See, e.g.,
`Kuster v. W. Digit. Techs., Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00563, Dkt. No. 65 (W.D. Tex. Mar.
`12, 2021) (joint motion to stay pending IPR) (Albright, J.); Parus Holdings, Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., No. 6:19-cv- 00432, Dkt. No. 225 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2020) (joint
`motion to stay pending IPR) (Albright, J.). Under these circumstances, with
`Patent Owner opposing, Judge Albright is highly unlikely to grant a stay of
`litigation. See Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. 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 Machine Co., 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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`No. 73 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019) (Albright, J.) (denying motion to stay 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. No. 6:18-cv-00207, Dkt. No. 73 at 4-6 (W.D. Tex.
`
`May 30, 2019) (Albright, J.). Here, the parties in all five parallel litigations will
`
`already be months into fact discovery before the Board is expected to make an
`
`institution decision. EX2002 at 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.
`
`The single instance where Judge Albright issued a stay over a patent owner’s
`
`objection is distinguishable from the current case. In that case, the final written
`
`decision would issue prior to trial, the facts indicated the Board was likely to
`
`invalidate the claims at issue, and the motion to stay was filed more than six
`
`months before the Markman hearing. See Kirsch Rsch. and Dev., LLC v. IKO
`
`Indus., Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00317-ADA, Dkt. No. 81 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021).
`
`None of these facts is present here: any possible final written decision is expected
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`to issue in January 2023, nearly four months after the October 3, 2022 trial date in
`
`the Hyundai parallel litigation; Petitioner’s challenges to the ’081 Patent are
`
`without merit (see infra Section IV); and the Markman hearing occurred already,
`
`without either party filing a motion to stay. 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.
`
`The unlikeliness of a district court stay is also clear from Judge Albright’s
`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 IPR final written
`decisions: “because I think that people have a constitutional right to assert their
`patent. . . . I think people ought to have a jury trial.” EX2005; see Cont’l
`Intermodal Grp., No. 7:18-cv-00147, 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, 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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`6:20-cv-00200, 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”); EX2005 (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.”), EX2004 (Transcript
`of September 2, 2020 hearing in ParkerVision v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108-
`ADA at 15-16) (Judge Albright noting that the number of cases he has stayed
`pending IPR in the Western District of Texas is zero). Patent Owner has
`requested a jury trial in the Hyundai Parallel Litigation and the other four
`litigations currently before Judge Albright.
`
`In view of Judge Albright’s record and his views against staying cases
`
`pending IPR final written decisions, this case is unlike that in Sand Revolution II;
`
`here, there is plenty of “specific evidence” that should enable the Board to
`
`“attempt to predict how the district court . . . will proceed.” Cf. Sand Revolution
`
`II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7
`
`(PTAB June 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`
`
`related one, based on a variety of circumstances and facts beyond our control and
`
`to which the Board is not privy.”).
`
`For these reasons, the Hyundai Parallel Litigation is unlikely to be stayed
`
`even if the Board institutes trial. Thus, factor 1 favors denial.3 See Google LLC,
`
`v. Uniloc 2017, IPR2020-00115, Paper 8 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2020) (“Factor[]s 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.”).
`
`
`
`3 To the extent factor 1 does not favor denying institution because neither
`
`Petitioner nor Patent Owner has requested a stay, at most, factor 1 should be
`
`considered 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). To rule
`
`otherwise would entice future petitioners to delay moving to stay until after
`
`institution to better position themselves to oppose discretionary denial under
`
`Fintiv.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01267
`U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081
`
`B. Fintiv Factor 2 Favors Denial Because The District Court Trial
`Date Is Several Months Before The Board’s Statutory Deadline
`For 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 dea