`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
` INGENIOSHARE, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00295
`Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`_____________________________________________________
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PTAB
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. SUMMARY OF WHY THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED ..................... 1
`A. The Board Should Deny Institution Based On The Fintiv Factors .................. 1
`B. The Board Should Deny Institution Based On The Merits .............................. 1
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................. 2
`A. The Parallel District Court Proceeding ............................................................ 2
`B. The Claims Of The ’038 Patent ........................................................................ 4
`C. The Specification Of The ’038 Patent .............................................................. 4
`D. Petitioner’s Definitions And Prior Art ............................................................. 5
`E. Tanigawa (Exhibit 1010) .................................................................................. 5
`IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BASED ON FINTIV ......................... 7
`A. The first factor that the PTAB considers is whether the court granted a stay
`or whether evidence exists that one may be granted if an IPR is instituted ........... 8
`B. The second factor that the PTAB considers is the proximity of the court’s
`trial date to the projected statutory deadline for the PTAB’s final written decision
`
`9
`C. The third factor that the PTAB considers is the investment in the parallel
`proceeding by the court and the parties .................................................................. 9
`D. The fourth factor that the PTAB considers is the overlap between issues
`raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding .............................................10
`E. The fifth factor that the PTAB considers is whether the petitioner and the
`defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party ......................................12
`F. The sixth factor that PTAB considers is whether other circumstances impact
`the PTAB’s exercise of discretion, including the merits ......................................12
`V. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BASED ON THE MERITS ............12
`A. Claim Construction .........................................................................................12
`B. The Specification Of The ʼ038 Patent Teaches That The “Network-Based
`Portal” Is At The Server-Side Of A Network .......................................................13
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`C. Tanigawa’s User Interface Does Not Teach A “Network-Based Portal” ......14
`VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Complaint
`
`Epic Games Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`
`Order Setting Markman Hearing
`
`Epic Games Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, the Patent Owner, IngenioShare, LLC
`
`hereby submits the following Preliminary Response to the Petition for inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038, Case No. IPR2022-00295. For the reasons
`
`explained herein, the Petition should be denied.
`
`SUMMARY OF WHY THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED
`II.
`A. The Board Should Deny Institution Based On The Fintiv Factors
`The Petition should be denied because Petitioner has raised the same
`
`invalidity arguments (and substantially more) in a parallel district court proceeding
`
`and the district court’s trial date precedes the Board’s deadline for a final written
`
`decision. Moreover, Petitioner is taking inconsistent positions before the district
`
`court and the Board that the district court is better suited to address and resolve. As
`
`a result, efficiency, fairness, and merits dictate the Board’s discretionary denial of
`
`institution in view of the district court’s earlier comprehensive trial date.
`
`B. The Board Should Deny Institution Based On The Merits
`All proposed grounds of unpatentability rest on a fundamental flaw. Each
`
`challenged claim requires a “network-based portal.” Each ground of
`
`unpatentability presented in the Petition relies on the assertion that this limitation is
`
`satisfied in the cited art by client-side functionality. This is contrary to the use of
`
`the term “network-based portal” in the specification, which universally indicates
`
`that the network-based portal is at the server-side. Nothing in the ’038 Patent
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`suggests that the network-based portal is a user interface at a client device, as
`
`Petitioner asserts. Because all Grounds in the Petition are based on Petitioner’s
`
`erroneous construction of “network-based portal,” the asserted prior art-based
`
`arguments fail and institution should be denied.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A. The Parallel District Court Proceeding
`The parallel district court proceeding involving the same parties was
`1.
`
`filed on June 25, 2021. See Exhibit 2001, Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`A scheduling order was filed in the parallel district court proceeding
`
`on October 6, 2021. See Exhibit 1011, Scheduling Order.
`
`3.
`
`The district court has not issued a stay in the parallel district court
`
`proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner has not sought a stay in the parallel district court
`
`proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner served voluminous invalidity contentions in the parallel
`
`district court litigation on November 11, 2021. See Exhibit 2002, Epic Games
`
`Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Petitioner’s district court invalidity
`
`contentions include all of the prior art cited and relied upon in the IPR Petition
`
`including Tanigawa (Exhibit 1010), Loveland (Exhibit 1008), Takahashi (Exhibit
`
`1009), and Hullfish (Exhibit 1011). Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`6.
`
`In addition, Petitioner’s/Defendant’s invalidity contentions for the
`
`ʼ038 Patent include many other prior art references and invalidity arguments that
`
`are not presented in the Petition. Id. at 18-29.
`
`7.
`
`Petitioner has not stipulated in the parallel district court proceeding
`
`that Petitioner will not attempt to invalidate the claims of the ’038 Patent based on
`
`Petitioner’s invalidity arguments that are raised in its invalidity contentions even if
`
`not raised before the Board. See Id. and Petition at 12. As a result,
`
`Patentee/Plaintiff could be forced to defend the validity of the ’038 Patent twice,
`
`once before the Board and a second time in the parallel district court proceeding.
`
`8.
`
`Claim construction briefing in the parallel district court proceeding
`
`was completed on February 28, 2022. See Exhibit 1011 at 2.
`
`9.
`
`A claim construction hearing in the parallel district court proceeding
`
`is scheduled for March 23, 2022. Exhibit 2003, Order Setting Markman Hearing.
`
`10. Petitioner/Defendant Epic Games Inc. has taken inconsistent claim
`
`construction positions before the Board and the district court with respect to at
`
`least the following four claim terms of the ʼ038 Patent: (1) “network-based portal”
`
`(2) “availability”; (3) “text [messaging / message]”; and (4) “indication.”
`
`11. Before the Board, Petitioner has not specifically identified any claim
`
`term of the ʼ038 Patent to be construed. See Petition at 26 (“Petitioner does not
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`believe that any terms need to be construed to assess the arguments presented
`
`herein.”).
`
`12. Before the district court, however, Petitioner contends that three of the
`
`four claim terms stated above should not be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, but the claim term “network-based portal” should be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. See Exhibit 2004, Epic Games Inc.’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief.
`
`13. The estimated trial date in the parallel district court proceeding is
`
`April 3, 2023. Exhibit 1011, Scheduling Order at 4.
`
`B. The Claims Of The ’038 Patent
`14. Every claim of the ’038 patent includes the claim term “network-
`
`based portal.” See Exhibit 1001 at claims 1-70).
`
`C. The Specification Of The ’038 Patent
`15. The specification of the ʼ038 Patent uses the term “network-based
`
`portal” consistently as being at the server-side of a network. In particular, the
`
`specification states:
`
`As explained above, based on an embodiment, a message is
`electronically conveyed by a central network server, such as a web
`server based on [an] Internet protocol. A portal or gateway approach
`could provide general Internet access to one or more embodiments of
`the communication management systems so that users can configure
`the system behavior they desire. The portal or gateway can then
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`facilitate download of a database or update thereto to a
`communication device, such as a phone.
`Exhibit 1001, ’038 patent at col. 7, lines 9-17 (emphasis added).
`
`16. The specification of the ʼ038 Patent further provides that (i) “a mobile
`
`phone” “calls a portal” (Id. Col. 6, lines 33-34) (emphasis added)); (ii) the “portal
`
`accesses the personal communication device” (Id. Col. 6, lines 53-54); and (iii)
`
`“[o]ne example of a networked server is a gateway computer for a wireless device,
`
`such as a mobile telephone.” (Id. at Col. 16, lines 17-19 (emphasis added)).
`
`D. Petitioner’s Definitions And Prior Art
`17. Contrary to the claims and specification of the ʼ038 Patent, Petitioner
`
`defines a “network-based portal” as “a user interface that connects clients to a
`
`network.” See Petition at 38 (emphasis added).
`
`18. Based on Petitioner’s characterization of a “network-based portal,”
`
`Petitioner contends that the primary reference relied upon in the Petition, Tanigawa
`
`(Exhibit 1010) teaches a “network-based portal” by disclosing an IP terminal (a
`
`client device) that includes a user interface that connects clients to a network. Id.
`
`E. Tanigawa (Exhibit 1010)
`19. Ground I of the Petition is based on the combination of Tanigawa
`
`(Exhibit 1010) and Hullfish (Exhibit 1011). The Petition relies solely on Tanigawa
`
`for allegedly teaching a “network-based portal.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`20. Petitioner contends that “Tanigawa’s IP terminal contains a ‘network-
`
`based portal,’ which is a user interface that connects clients to a network (shown
`
`below in Figure 12)”. See Petition at 38.
`
`21. Figure 1 of Tanigawa (Exhibit 1010) shows three IP terminals (7-1, 7-
`
`2, 7-3) at the client side of the network:
`
`22. Figure 12 of Tanigawa shows a user interface of a client, which is at
`
`the client side of the network:
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at [0025].
`
`23. As a result, Tanigawa’s user interface is provided by and displayed in
`
`an IP terminal at the client side of the network. See Petition at 38-39.
`
`IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BASED ON FINTIV
`The Board may deny institution of an IPR when the patent at issue is
`
`litigated in a parallel proceeding. NHK Spring Co., Ltd., v. Intri-plex Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential). The Board has
`
`identified six factors it will consider for exercising its discretion to deny institution
`
`of an IPR in view of a parallel proceeding. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). All six factors indicate that
`
`the Board should deny the Petition.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`A. The first factor that the PTAB considers is whether the court
`granted a stay or whether evidence exists that one may be granted
`if an IPR is instituted
`Fintiv factor 1 favors denial of institution. The district court has not issued a
`
`stay in the parallel district court proceeding. And even though Petitioner stated that
`
`“Petitioner will move the district court for a stay of the validity issues,” Petitioner
`
`has not filed a motion to stay with the district court. See Petition at 9. Thus, the
`
`district court litigation is proceeding.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner/Defendant submitted voluminous invalidity
`
`contentions in the parallel district court litigation. See Exhibit 2002, Epic Games
`
`Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Petitioner’s district court invalidity
`
`contentions include all of the prior art cited and relied upon in the IPR Petition,
`
`including Tanigawa (Exhibit 1010), Loveland (Exhibit 1008), and Takahashi
`
`(Exhibit 1009), and Hullfish (Exhibit 1011). Id. Petitioner, however, has not
`
`stipulated in the parallel district court proceeding that Petitioner will not attempt to
`
`invalidate the claims of the ’038 Patent based on Petitioner’s invalidity arguments
`
`as raised in this IPR or those that could have been raised but have not been raised
`
`in this IPR. See Ex. 2002 at 18-29 and Petition at 12. As a result, Patentee could be
`
`forced to defend the validity of the ’038 Patent before both the Board and the
`
`district court.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The second factor that the PTAB considers is the proximity of the
`court’s trial date to the projected statutory deadline for the
`PTAB’s final written decision
`Fintiv factor 2 favors denial of institution. The district court’s estimated trial
`
`date is April 3, 2023. See Exhibit 1001, Scheduling Order at 4. If instituted, the
`
`PTAB’s deadline for a final written decision is about two months later on June 13,
`
`2023. Thus, the parties will be able to resolve all of Petitioner’s/Defendant’s
`
`invalidity arguments before the district court faster than the parties will be able to
`
`address a very small subset of Petitioner’s/Defendant’s invalidity arguments
`
`regarding only Tanigawa, Loveland, Takahashi, and Hullfish in this potential IPR
`
`proceeding.
`
`C. The third factor that the PTAB considers is the investment in the
`parallel proceeding by the court and the parties
`Fintiv factor 3 favors denial of institution. In the district court proceeding the
`
`parties already have exchanged infringement contentions and invalidity
`
`contentions. The parties also have completed claim construction briefing with a
`
`claim construction hearing scheduled for March 23, 2022, which will result in a
`
`claim construction order soon thereafter. See Exhibit 2003, Order Setting Markman
`
`Hearing.
`
`Thus, if instituted, both the Board and the district court will engage in claim
`
`construction, and given Petitioner’s/Defendant’s inconsistent positions with respect
`
`to four claim terms of the ʼ038 Patent ((1) “network-based portal” (2)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`“availability”; (3) “text [messaging / message]”; and (4) “indication,” it is possible
`
`that a claim term could be construed inconsistently.
`
`Moreover, even if the IPR is instituted, the district court will still have to
`
`resolve Petitioner’s/Defendant’s voluminous and overlapping invalidity arguments
`
`because the district court’s schedule precedes the IPR’s deadline for a final written
`
`decision. As a result, there will be a substantial duplication of efforts with respect
`
`to the alleged invalidity of the claims of the ʼ038 Patent.
`
`D. The fourth factor that the PTAB considers is the overlap between
`issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding
`Fintiv factor 4 favors denial of institution. Petitioner submitted voluminous
`
`invalidity contentions in the district court litigation. See Exhibit 2002, Epic Games
`
`Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Petitioner’s district court invalidity
`
`contentions utilize all of the prior art cited and relied upon in the IPR Petition,
`
`including Tanigawa (Exhibit 1010), Loveland (Exhibit 1008), Takahashi (Exhibit
`
`1009), and Hullfish (Exhibit 1011). Id. Although the Petition talks of a stipulation
`
`that Petitioner may one day make, no such stipulation has been filed. Petition at 12.
`
`Petitioner also looks to the Board’s Sotera Wireless decision for support, but none
`
`is available because here there is no stipulation, and importantly, no details as to
`
`the scope of the non-existent stipulation.
`
`The parallel district court proceeding has numerous active invalidity
`
`challenges beyond those raised in the Petition. Again, Petitioner has not stipulated
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`in the district lawsuit that Petitioner will not attempt to invalidate the claims of the
`
`’038 Patent based on Petitioner’s invalidity arguments that are raised before the
`
`Board. See Petition at 12. As a result, there is substantial overlap between issues
`
`raised in the Petition and those asserted in the parallel district court proceeding. As
`
`such, Patentee would unfairly be forced to defend the patentability/validity of the
`
`’038 Patent before the Board and in court on the same prior art and related
`
`arguments.
`
`
`
`Petitioner has also taken inconsistent claim construction positions before the
`
`district court as compared to the IPR Petition. First, in the Petition, Petitioner has
`
`not specifically presented a claim construction argument for any claim term. See
`
`Petition at 26 (“Petitioner does not believe that any terms need to be construed to
`
`assess the arguments presented herein.”). Before the district court, however,
`
`Petitioner asserts that at least three claim terms ((1) “availability”; (2) “text
`
`[messaging / message]”; and (3) “indication”) need to be construed by the district
`
`court and should not be given their respective plain and ordinary meanings. See
`
`Exhibit 2004, Epic Games Inc. Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`
`
`Second, Petitioner/Defendant did not ask the district court to construe the
`
`claim term “network-based portal,” which means that by default it will be given its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. But in the Petition, despite its representation that no
`
`terms need to be construed, the Petition advocates for an interpretation of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`“network-based portal”(i.e., a client terminal providing “a user interface that
`
`connects clients to a network”) that deviates from its ordinary meaning. See
`
`Petition at 38.
`
`E.
`
`The fifth factor that the PTAB considers is whether the petitioner
`and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party
`Fintiv factor 5 favors denial of institution. The parties are the same in the
`
`district court litigation and in the IPR Petition.
`
`F.
`
`The sixth factor the PTAB considers is whether other
`circumstances impact the PTAB’s exercise of discretion, including
`the merits
`Fintiv factor 6 favors denial of institution. Patentee does not presently
`
`believe that there is any other circumstance that would impact the Board’s exercise
`
`of discretion. To the extent there is any merit in Petitioner’s arguments raised in
`
`the Petition, Petitioner can present them in district court along with the remainder
`
`of Petitioner’s invalidity arguments, resulting in a more efficient resolution of all
`
`of Petitioner’s invalidity arguments.
`
`As the Fintiv factors favor denial of the Petition, institution should be
`
`denied.
`
`V. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BASED ON THE MERITS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an IPR claim terms are construed using the standard used in civil actions
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The standard used in federal
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`courts is set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). Under Phillips, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and
`
`customary meaning,” which is the meaning they would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the specification and
`
`prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13.
`
`B.
`
`The Specification Of The ʼ038 Patent Teaches That The
`“Network-Based Portal” Is At The Server-Side Of A
`Network
`The specification of the ʼ038 Patent uses the term “network-based portal”
`
`consistently as being at the server-side of a network. In particular, the specification
`
`states:
`
`As explained above, based on an embodiment, a message is
`electronically conveyed by a central network server, such as a web
`server based on [an] Internet protocol. A portal or gateway approach
`could provide general Internet access to one or more embodiments of
`the communication management systems so that users can configure
`the system behavior they desire. The portal or gateway can then
`facilitate download of a database or update thereto to a
`communication device, such as a phone.
`Exhibit 1001, ’038 Patent at 7:9-17 (emphasis added).
`
`The specification of the ʼ038 Patent further provides that (i) “a network-
`
`based portal based on Internet protocol, receives a message” “from a person’s
`
`wireless device” (Id. at Abstract) (emphasis added)); (ii) “a mobile phone” “calls a
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`portal” (Id. Col. 6, lines 33-34) (emphasis added)); (iii) the “portal accesses the
`
`personal communication device” (Id. Col. 6, lines 53-55); and (iv) “[o]ne example
`
`of a networked server is a gateway computer for a wireless device, such as a
`
`mobile telephone.” (Id. at Col. 16, lines 17-19 (emphasis added)).
`
`
`
`As shown above, the specification teaches that the claimed “network-based
`
`portal” is at the server-side of a network. The specification does not teach that the
`
`“network-based portal” is at the client-side of a network. The specification
`
`certainly does not support the interpretation that a user interface at a client
`
`constitutes a network-based portal.
`
`C. Tanigawa’s User Interface Does Not Teach A “Network-Based
`Portal”
`Petitioner incorrectly contends (with respect to Tanigawa) that the claimed
`
`
`
`“network-based portal” is a “a user interface that connects clients to a network,”
`
`i.e., the network-based portal is at the client-side of the network, not the server-
`
`side. The portion of Tanigawa that Petitioner relies upon merely teaches a user
`
`interface provided by a client device; it does not teach anything that is at the
`
`server-side of a network.
`
`Figure 12 of Tanigawa shows a “user interface of” a “client, which is
`
`displayed in an IP terminal 7”:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Id. at [0025].
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Tanigawa, the user interface provided by an IP
`
`terminal (such as 7-1, 7-2, 7-3) is at the client-side of the network:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`In summary, Tanigawa’s user interface provided by a client device (IP Terminal) is
`
`at the client-side of the network. Tanigawa’s user interface is not at the server-side
`
`of the network. Thus, Tanigawa’s user interface cannot be a “network-based
`
`portal,” which is at the server-side of a network.
`
`Petitioner points to nothing in Hullfish curing this defect in its allegations
`
`based on Tanigawa. As a result, the combination of Tanigawa and Hullfish fails to
`
`obviate the claims of the ’038 patent challenged in Ground I because the
`
`combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed “network-based portal.” The
`
`Board should therefore deny institution on Ground I of the Petition. Likewise,
`
`Petitioner fails to point to anything in Loveland or Takahashi curing this
`
`deficiency. Thus, the Board should also deny institution on Grounds II-IV.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the above stated reasons, the Petition should be denied.
`
`Respectfully submitted this 13th day of March, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen R. Risley/
`
`Stephen R. Risley
`Email: steverisley@kentrisley.com
`Telephone: (404) 585-2101
`Cortney S. Alexander
`Email: cortneyalexander@kentrisley.com
`Telephone: (404) 855-3867
`
`KENT & RISLEY LLC
`5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 57
`Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner,
`IngenioShare, LLC
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`
`
`This Preliminary Response complies with the type-volume limitation as
`
`mandated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, totaling 3,006 words. Counsel has relied upon the
`
`word count feature provided by Microsoft Word.
`
`/Stephen R. Risley/
`Stephen R. Risley
`Registration No. 35,659
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 was served on March 13, 2022,
`
`via email on the following counsel for Petitioners:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`KENT & RISLEY LLC
`
`/Stephen R. Risley/
`
`
`
`19
`
`