throbber
IPR2021-01267
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket