`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INGENIOSHARE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,708,727
`
`Case IPR2022-TBD
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2
`D.
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information ......................................... 3
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103 ........................................ 3
`III.
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 3
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 4
`A.
`Prior Art Printed Publications ............................................................... 4
`B.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 5
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE .................... 6
`A.
`The ’727 Patent Has Not Been Subject to a Prior Petition ................... 6
`B.
`The Presented Grounds and Argument Are Dissimilar to the Art
`and Arguments Previously Presented to the Office .............................. 7
`Becton Dickinson Factors ........................................................... 7
`The ’727 Claims Are a Subset of Claims Directed to
`Substantially Overlapping Subject Matter .................................. 7
`Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support the Exercise of the
`Board’s Authority to Grant the Petition ................................................ 8
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 13
`A. Network Protocols ............................................................................... 13
`A. Modes of Internet Communications .................................................... 16
`VIII. THE ’727 PATENT ....................................................................................... 20
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`Claims .................................................................................................. 21
`A.
`Summary of the Specification ............................................................. 21
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 23
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 25
`D.
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 25
`X. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 25
`A. Overview of Diacakis .......................................................................... 25
`B.
`Overview of Tanigawa ........................................................................ 30
`C.
`Overview of Hullfish ........................................................................... 33
`D. Overview of Loveland ......................................................................... 33
`E.
`Overview of Takahashi ....................................................................... 34
`XI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 35
`A. Ground I: Claims 1–6, 15, and 17 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Diacakis ............................................................................................... 35
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 35
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 47
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 48
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 49
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 50
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 50
`Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 51
`Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 52
`Ground II: Claims 7–9 Are Rendered Obvious by Diacakis and
`Loveland .............................................................................................. 53
` Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 53
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 57
`
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 58
`
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`C.
`
`Ground III: Claim 16 Is Rendered Obvious by Diacakis and
`Takahashi ............................................................................................. 59
` Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 59
`Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 62
`
`D. Ground IV: Claims 1–3, 6, 15, and 17 Are Rendered Obvious
`by Tanigawa and Hullfish ................................................................... 63
` Motivation to Combine Tanigawa and Hullfish ....................... 63
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 67
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 80
`
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 81
`
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 81
`
`Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 82
`
`Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 83
`
`Ground V: Claims 7–9 Are Rendered Obvious by Tanigawa,
`Hullfish, and Loveland ........................................................................ 84
` Motivation to Combine Tanigawa, Hullfish, and
`Loveland .................................................................................... 84
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 86
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 87
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 87
`Ground VI: Claim 16 Is Rendered Obvious by Tanigawa,
`Hullfish, and Takahashi ....................................................................... 87
` Motivation to Combine Tanigawa, Hullfish, and
`Takahashi .................................................................................. 87
`Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 90
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 90
`XIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 91
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) .............................................. 7
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ........................................... 8
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020) ..................................... 9, 11
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks,
`IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 ................................................................................... 10
`Apple, Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00381, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. July 2, 2021) .............................................. 9
`Arbor Glob. Strategies LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00333-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 66531 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7,
`2021) ..................................................................................................................... 9
`Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................. 7
`Bowtech Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019) ............................................. 7
`Brunswick Corp. v. Volvo Penta of the Ams., LLC,
`IPR2020-01512, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. March 11, 2021) ...................................... 11
`
`DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick
`Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................passim
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019) ............................................... 7
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kubushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................. 6
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`Intel Corp., v. Health Discovery Corp.,
`IPR2021-00554, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 20, 2021) ..................................... 9, 11
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GES.M.B.H., v. Advanced Bionics
`AG,
`IPR2021-00044, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. April 6, 2021) .......................................... 11
`Med-EL Elektromedizinische Gerate GmbH v. Advanced Bionics AG,
`IPR2020-00190, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. June 3, 2020) ........................................... 11
`NanoCellect Biomedical, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC,
`IPR2020-00551, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020) ......................................... 12
`NVIDIA Corp. v. Invensas Corp.,
`IPR2020-00602, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2020) ........................................... 12
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 90
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 25
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ............................. 10, 12, 13
`Seven Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00115-JRG, Dkt. 313 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2020) ...................... 9, 12
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ........................................... 12
`VMWare, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2020-00470, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020) ......................................... 11
`VMWare, Inc., v. WSOU Investments, LLC,
`IPR2021-00572, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept., 2021) .................................................. 9
`WAG Acquisition, LLC v. WebPower, Inc.,
`781 F. App’x 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................... 46
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 91
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) ........................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth in Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Kevin Almeroth
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/527,565
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/689,686
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2002/0116461 (“Diacakis”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,287,056 (“Loveland”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2002/0183114 (“Takahashi”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2004/0001480 (“Tanigawa”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,428,580 (“Hullfish”)
`
`IngenioShare’s Infringement Contentions in Texas Litigation
`
`Texas Litigation Proposed Scheduling Order
`
`Fourteenth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under
`the Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic
`Judge Albright’s Standing Order re Inter-District Transfer
`
`Kurose, J. and Ross, K., Computer Networking: A Top-Down
`Approach Feature the Internet (2000)
`Kuehn, S., A Play Theory Analysis of Computer-Mediated
`Telecommunication (Apr. 20, 1990)
`Telecomputing in Japan
`
`Hernandez, R., ECPA and Online Computer Privacy (1988)
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`Description
`
`Miller, A., Applications of Computer Conferencing to Teacher
`Education and Human Resource Development (1991)
`Benimoff, N. and Burns, M., Multimedia User Interfaces for
`Telecommunications Products and Services (1993)
`Falconer, W. and Hooke, J., Telecommunications Services in the
`Next Decade (1986)
`Hine, N.A., et al., An Adaptable User Interface to a Multimedia
`Telecommunications Conversation Service for People with
`Disabilities (1995)
`Bazaios, A., et al., Multimedia Architecture Offering Open Distance
`Learning Services over Internet
`Stein, J., et al., Chat and Instant Messaging Systems (2002)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,241,612 (“Heredia”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2003/0216178 (“Danieli”)
`
`International Patent Application WO 01/45343 (“Davies”)
`
`Grinter, R. and Palen, L., Instant Messaging in Teen Life (2002)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,744,407
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,736,664
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727 Claim Listing
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,828,924 (“Gustavsson”)
`
`Patil, S. and Kobsa, A., The Challenges in Preserving Privacy in
`Awareness Systems (2003)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`Petitioner Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic Games” or “Petitioner”) requests inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–9 and 15–17 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,708,727 (Ex. 1001, “the ’727 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Computer-implemented communications systems have been known in the art
`
`for several decades. Before the ’727 Patent’s earliest priority date, it was well known
`
`that users of such systems could use different devices (including mobile telephones)
`
`to communicate using voice, text, and images. Blocking and privacy features were
`
`likewise known at this time, as Internet-based communicators were enabled to mute
`
`selectively (or “block”) other users from communicating with them and to prevent
`
`others from seeing their contact information.
`
`Yet, the ’727 Patent claims just that. The ’727 Patent purportedly discloses
`
`an Internet-based communications system in which a first user selects from a
`
`plurality of “modes of communication” (including text and voice) when sending a
`
`message to a second user. See Ex. 1001. The purported novelty of the ’727 Patent
`
`is that, based on an identifier of the second user, the second user is permitted to block
`
`the first user from reaching the second user, where the communications system
`
`determines the “availability” of the second user, and where contact information of
`
`the second user (e.g., phone number or email address) is not provided to the first
`
`user.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`As demonstrated herein, the purportedly novel aspects of the ’727 Patent were
`
`well known in the prior art and practiced by persons of skill in the art before the
`
`claimed invention. The references and combinations presented in this Petition that
`
`show the Challenged Claims are invalid as obvious were not considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution—in fact, the Examiner allowed the claims of the ’727
`
`Patent without issuing a single office action, despite their obviousness. Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that the Challenged Claims be canceled as invalid.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Petitioner identifies the following real party-in-interest: Epic Games, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`IngenioShare, LLC (“IngenioShare” or “Patent Owner”) has asserted the ’727
`
`Patent in IngenioShare, LLC v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00663-ADA (W.D.
`
`Tex.) (the “Texas Litigation”).
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`W. Todd Baker (No. 45,265)
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`Yimeng Dou (No. 69,770)
`yimeng.dou@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`D.
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`Epic Games concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b),
`
`and consents to electronic service directed to the following email address:
`
`Epic_IngenioShare @kirkland.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.15(a)(1) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092. Review of 12 claims
`
`is requested. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees
`
`that may be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the above-
`
`referenced deposit account.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’727 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner certifies: (1)
`
`Petitioner is not the owner of the ’727 patent; (2) Petitioner (or any real party-in-
`
`interest) has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’727
`
`patent; (3) Petitioner files this Petition within one year of the date it was served with
`
`a complaint asserting infringement of the ’727 patent; (4) estoppel provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. §315(e)(1) do not prohibit this IPR; and (5) this Petition is filed after the ’727
`
`patent was granted.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’727
`
`Patent and requests that they be canceled.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Printed Publications
`Petitioner’s challenge is based on the following prior-art references:
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2002/0116461 (“Diacakis”) (Ex. 1007), filed
`
`on February 5, 2002, published on August 22, 2002, is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b).1
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,287,056 (“Loveland”) (Ex. 1008), filed on
`
`September 28, 2001, published on October 23, 2007, is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2002/0183114 (“Takahashi”) (Ex. 1009),
`
`filed on May 29, 2002, published on December 5, 2002, is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2004/0001480 (“Tanigawa”) (Ex. 1010),
`
`filed on August 30, 2002, published on January 1, 2004 is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`
`1
`Based on the claimed priority date of the ’727 patent, Pre-AIA versions of
`
`§102(a) and §103 apply.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,428,580 (“Hullfish”) (Ex. 1011), filed on November
`
`26, 2003, published on May 26, 2005, granted on September 23, 2008, is prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`
`
`The above prior art references predate the ’727 Patent, which claims priority
`
`to a provisional application filed on June 10, 2005. Patent Owner asserts an earlier
`
`priority date of April 27, 2005. See Ex. 1012 (Patent Owner’s Infringement
`
`Contentions) at 2.2 The above references and the combinations presented herein
`
`were not presented to or considered by the Examiner during prosecution. See
`
`generally Ex. 1002.
`
`B. Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103. The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth below,
`
`and are supported by the declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth (Ex. 1003). Specifically,
`
`Grounds I–III are based on Diacakis, and Grounds IV–VI are based on Tanigawa in
`
`combination with Hullfish.
`
`
`2
`Petitioner reserves the right to challenge the April 27, 2005; the June 10, 2005
`
`date; or any other alleged priority date.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`Ground
`I
`
`Claim(s)
`1–6, 15, 17
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`Obvious under §103 in view of Diacakis
`
`II
`
`7–9
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`16
`
`1–3, 6, 15,17
`
`V
`
`7–9
`
`VI
`
`16
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Diacakis in
`combination with Loveland
`Obvious under §103 in view of Diacakis in
`combination with Takahashi
`Obvious under §103 in view of Tanigawa in
`combination with Hullfish
`Obvious under §103 in view of Tanigawa in
`combination with Hullfish and Loveland
`Obvious under §103 in view of Tanigawa in
`combination with Hullfish and Takahashi
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE
`A. The ’727 Patent Has Not Been Subject to a Prior Petition
`The ’727 has not been subject to any prior IPR or PGR petitions. Thus, this
`
`is not a “follow-on” petition and there is no basis for the Board to exercise its
`
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Gen. Plastic Indus.
`
`Co. v. Canon Kubushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017).
`
`Further, Epic Games has filed only a single petition challenging the claims of
`
`the ’727, avoiding any suggestion that Epic Games has placed a substantial and
`
`unnecessary burden on the Board. See Trial Practice Guide Update (July 2019).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`B.
`
`The Presented Grounds and Argument Are Dissimilar to the Art
`and Arguments Previously Presented to the Office
`Becton Dickinson Factors
`
`All factors considered by the Board under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) weigh in favor
`
`of institution. Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-
`
`01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017); see also Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-
`
`El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb.
`
`13, 2020). The Board has consistently “held that a reference that ‘was neither
`
`applied against the claims nor discussed by the Examiner’ does not weigh in favor
`
`of exercising [] discretion under §325(d).” Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus.,
`
`Inc., IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 at 7–11 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019). The grounds
`
`presented in the petition include obviousness challenges applying Diacakis and
`
`Tanigawa as base references. Neither reference was applied against the Challenged
`
`Claims or discussed by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’727 or its parent
`
`applications. Nor were the grounds or combinations in this Petition evaluated during
`
`prosecution. Bowtech Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC, IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 at 5 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Aug. 6, 2019).
`
`
`
`The ’727 Claims Are a Subset of Claims Directed to
`Substantially Overlapping Subject Matter
`The ’727 belongs to a family of more than fifteen patents, four of which are
`
`or will be subject to IPR petitions, including this one. Each of the four challenged
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`patents, with the exception of ’407, is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The same
`
`Examiner examined all the related patents.
`
`The ’727 application was filed August 29, 2019. After an atypical and cursory
`
`examination, the Examiner allowed the ’727 on February 25, 2020—a mere five
`
`months from the application’s filing—with no intervening office actions. See Ex.
`
`1002, 118. Specifically, the Examiner found that “Claims 1-17 are allowance [sic]
`
`according [sic] the history [sic] rejection of Application 12/798,995 now US Patent
`
`8,744,407. Application 14/922,344 now US patent 9,736,664.” See id., 123. The
`
`Examiner’s cursory prosecution erroneously allowed the claims of the ’727 patent
`
`despite their obvious, as set forth below. See infra, §VIII.C.
`
`The Board is best situated to efficiently and fairly address the Examiner’s
`
`repeated errors that permitted this large patent family to issue with invalid claims
`
`directed to substantially overlapping subject matter.
`
`C. Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support the Exercise of the
`Board’s Authority to Grant the Petition
`Taking “a holistic view” of the six Apple v. Fintiv factors demonstrates that
`
`the Board should not exercise its discretion under §314(a) in light of the Texas
`
`Litigation. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential).
`
`Factor 1: Institution will enable the Board to resolve the validity issue, and a
`
`finding of invalidity will relieve the district court of the need to continue with the
`
`majority of the Texas Litigation. Petitioner will move the district court for a stay of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`all validity issues, providing the Board the sole opportunity to adjudicate §102/103
`
`issues. The opportunity for such simplification increases the likelihood the court
`
`will grant a stay in view of IPR institution. See Arbor Glob. Strategies LLC v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:19-cv-00333-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 66531, at *3 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Jan. 7, 2021) (staying district court case in view of IPR—four months before
`
`trial—due to likelihood of simplifying issues); see also Seven Networks, LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00115-JRG, Dkt. 313 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2020) (same—
`
`six weeks before trial).
`
`Patent Owner may contend that the district court is unlikely to grant a stay.
`
`However, the Board repeatedly has declined to infer “based on actions taken in
`
`different cases with different facts, how the District Court would rule.” See Apple
`
`Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020)
`
`(informative). This has been the case even when the parallel proceeding is before
`
`Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas (as in the present Texas Litigation).
`
`See Apple, Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00381, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. July 2, 2021);
`
`VMWare, Inc., v. WSOU Investments, LLC, IPR2021-00572, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Sept., 2021); Intel Corp., v. Health Discovery Corp., IPR2021-00554, Paper 19
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 20, 2021). Absent any future development in the Texas Litigation,
`
`uncertainty regarding the status for the motion for stay renders this factor at least
`
`neutral.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`Factor 2: Based on proposed scheduling order in the Texas Litigation, trial in
`
`the Texas Litigation will likely be scheduled for May 2023, proximate to the
`
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision (May 2023). Ex. 1013.
`
`However, the Western District of Texas has experienced a backlog of jury trials due
`
`to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, making the May 2023 date uncertain. See Ex.
`
`1014; Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 at 8–9 (these facts
`
`“diminish[] the extent to which this factor weighs in favor of exercising discretion”).
`
`Additionally, Petitioner has moved to dismiss the Texas Litigation based on
`
`improper venue and has moved to transfer the Texas Litigation to the Eastern District
`
`of North Carolina. Determination of both motions may further extend the tentative
`
`deadlines in the Texas Litigation. See Ex. 1015 (J. Albright’s Standing Order re
`
`Inter-District Transfer). To date, Judge Albright has conducted seven patent
`
`infringement trials in front of a jury. The shortest time to trial was 19.8 months and
`
`the longest was 26 months. The median time to trial is 22.9 months. Thus, there is
`
`a low likelihood that the trial will be conducted as currently scheduled.
`
`By contrast, “the Board continues to be fully operational,” and thus the
`
`projected statutory deadline for the final written decision will not change. See Sand
`
`Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper
`
`24 at 9 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020). This factor weighs against exercising discretion
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`to deny institution. See Brunswick Corp. v. Volvo Penta of the Ams., LLC, IPR2020-
`
`01512, Paper 15 at 10–11 (P.T.A.B. March 11, 2021) (citing Fintiv at 12).
`
`Factor 3: Petitioner has acted diligently, and has filed this petition within five
`
`months of the Complaint in the Texas Litigation, which identified for the first time
`
`the claims IngenioShare is asserting. Moreover, Petitioner files these petitions
`
`within two months after receiving IngenioShare’s preliminary infringement
`
`contentions in the Texas Litigation. See Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte
`
`GES.M.B.H., v. Advanced Bionics AG, IPR2021-00044, Paper 14 at 24–25 (P.T.A.B.
`
`April 6, 2021); Health Discovery, Paper 19 at 9 (“Petitioner was diligent in filing its
`
`petition within three months of receiving Patent Owner’s preliminary infringement
`
`contentions.”). By the institution date in May 2022, the parties and district court
`
`will have invested limited resources in the Texas Litigation, particularly with regard
`
`to invalidity issues. Based on the Texas Litigation proposed scheduling order, the
`
`Markman hearing will likely be scheduled for March 2022 (Ex. 1013), and the case
`
`may be dismissed or transferred before then. See Med-EL Elektromedizinische
`
`Gerate GmbH v. Advanced Bionics AG, IPR2020-00190, Paper 15 at 12–14
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 3, 2020) (weighing this factor against exercising discretion if
`
`Markman order has not issued at time of institution decision). And the deadlines for
`
`completing fact discovery, exchanging expert reports, and filing dispositive motions
`
`will likely occur in 2023. Ex. 1013; see VMWare, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`LLC, IPR2020-00470, Paper 13 at 19 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020) (instituting where
`
`“much work remains in the parallel proceeding as it relates to invalidity”).
`
`Factor 4: In the event that trial in the Texas Litigation occurs before the FWD,
`
`Petitioner will stipulate in the Texas Litigation that, if this IPR is instituted,
`
`Petitioner will not pursue invalidity on the specific grounds raised here or on any
`
`other ground that reasonably could have been raised in this IPR. Numerous Board
`
`decisions, including the precedential decision Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`
`confirm that such a stipulation eliminates concerns about the overlap between the
`
`district-court case and the IPR, causing this factor to weigh strongly against the
`
`Board exercising its discretion under §314(a). IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 1, 2020) at 18; see NVIDIA Corp. v. Invensas Corp., IPR2020-00602, Paper 11
`
`at 27–28 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2020); NanoCellect Biomedical, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST,
`
`LLC, IPR2020-00551, Paper 19 at 21–24 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020); Sand
`
`Revolution, Paper 24 at 11–12; Seven, Paper 10 at 12–16.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner challenges claims 4 and 5 which are not asserted in the