`
`
`
`
`
`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. 10,492,038
`
`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. 10,492,038
`
`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 ’038 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
`1.
`Becton Dickinson Factors ........................................................... 7
`2.
`The ’038 Patent’s Challenged 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 and Architecture ................................................... 13
`B. Modes of Internet Communications .................................................... 16
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`VIII. THE ’038 PATENT ....................................................................................... 20
`A.
`Claims .................................................................................................. 21
`B.
`Summary of the Specification ............................................................. 21
`C.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 23
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 25
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 25
`X. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 26
`A. Overview of Tanigawa ........................................................................ 26
`A. Overview of Hullfish ........................................................................... 29
`B.
`Overview of Loveland ......................................................................... 30
`C.
`Overview of Takahashi ....................................................................... 31
`XI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 33
`A. Ground I: Claims 7, 10–12, 22–24, 33–36, 38–41, 46, 49, 51–
`53, 55, 57–58, And 64–66 Are Rendered Obvious by Tanigawa
`in View of Hullfish .............................................................................. 33
`1. Motivation to Combine Tanigawa and Hullfish ....................... 33
`2.
`Independent Claim 7 ................................................................. 37
`3.
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 56
`4.
`Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................. 56
`5.
`Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 58
`6.
`Dependent Claim 22 ................................................................. 59
`7.
`Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................. 59
`8.
`Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................. 59
`9.
`Dependent Claim 33 ................................................................. 59
`10. Dependent Claim 34 ................................................................. 61
`11. Dependent Claim 35 ................................................................. 62
`12. Dependent Claim 36 ................................................................. 63
`13.
`Independent Claim 38 ............................................................... 64
`14. Dependent Claim 39 ................................................................. 65
`15. Dependent Claim 40 ................................................................. 65
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`16. Dependent Claim 41 ................................................................. 65
`17.
`Independent Claim 46 ............................................................... 65
`18. Dependent Claim 49 ................................................................. 68
`19. Dependent Claim 51 ................................................................. 70
`20. Dependent Claim 52 ................................................................. 70
`21. Dependent Claim 53 ................................................................. 71
`22. Dependent Claim 55 ................................................................. 71
`23. Dependent Claim 57 ................................................................. 72
`24. Dependent Claim 58 ................................................................. 72
`25. Dependent Claim 64 ................................................................. 72
`26. Dependent Claim 65 ................................................................. 73
`27. Dependent Claim 66 ................................................................. 73
`Ground II: Claims 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, and 54 Are Rendered
`Obvious by Tanigawa in View of Hullfish And Loveland ................. 74
`1. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 74
`2.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 76
`3.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 77
`4.
`Dependent Claim 43 ................................................................. 77
`5.
`Dependent Claim 44 ................................................................. 78
`6.
`Dependent Claim 47 ................................................................. 78
`7.
`Dependent Claim 48 ................................................................. 78
`8.
`Dependent Claim 50 ................................................................. 78
`9.
`Dependent Claim 54 ................................................................. 78
`Ground III: Claims 37, 42, 56, 59–63, and 67 Are Rendered
`Obvious by Tanigawa in view of Hullfish And Takahashi ................. 79
`1. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 79
`2.
`Dependent Claim 37 ................................................................. 82
`3.
`Dependent Claim 42 ................................................................. 83
`4.
`Dependent Claim 56 ................................................................. 84
`5.
`Dependent Claim 59 ................................................................. 84
`6.
`Dependent Claim 60 ................................................................. 84
`7.
`Dependent Claim 61 ................................................................. 85
`8.
`Dependent Claim 62 ................................................................. 85
`9.
`Dependent Claim 63 ................................................................. 85
`10. Dependent Claim 67 ................................................................. 85
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`D. Ground IV: Claim 45 Is Rendered Obvious by Tanigawa in
`View of Hullfish, Loveland, And Takahashi ...................................... 85
`1. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 85
`2.
`Dependent Claim 45 ................................................................. 86
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 86
`XIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 87
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`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 (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2020) .......................................... 10
`Apple Inc. v. UUSI, LLC,
`IPR2019-00358, Paper 12, 19–20 (P.T.A.B., Aug. 5, 2019) ................................ 5
`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) .............................................................. 33, 74, 79
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019) ............................................... 7
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kubushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................. 6
`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
`Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc.,
`IPR2019-00814, Paper 12, 14 (P.T.A.B., Nov. 6, 2019) ...................................... 6
`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) .......................................................................... 86
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 25, 26
`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) ......................................... 12
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`VMWare, Inc., v. WSOU Investments, LLC,
`IPR2021-00572, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept., 2021) .................................................. 9
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 87
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) ........................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth in Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`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 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)
`
`Miller, A., Applications of Computer Conferencing to Teacher
`Education and Human Resource Development (1991)
`
`viii
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Description
`
`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. 10,492,038 Claim Listing
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,828,924 (“Gustavsson”)
`
`Patil, S. and Kobsa, A., The Challenges in Preserving Privacy in
`Awareness Systems (2003)
`Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 2779 (Instant
`Messaging/Presence Protocol Requirements) (2000)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,204,268
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`Petitioner Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic Games” or “Petitioner”) requests inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of claims 7–12, 22–24, 33–67 (the “Challenged Claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038 (Ex. 1001, “the ’038 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Computer-implemented communications systems have been known in the art
`
`for several decades. Before the ’038 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 ’038 Patent clams just that. The ’038 Patent purportedly discloses an
`
`Internet-based communications system in which a first user of an electronic device
`
`(e.g., a mobile telephone) selects from a plurality of “modes of communication”
`
`(including text and voice) when sending a message to an electronic device associated
`
`with a second user. See Ex. 1001. The purported novelty of the ’038 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
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`the second user (e.g., phone number or email address) is not provided to the first
`
`user.
`
`As demonstrated herein, the purportedly novel aspects of the ’038 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 ’038
`
`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 ’038
`
`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.
`
`Yimeng Dou (No. 69,770)
`yimeng.dou@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`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 44 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 ’038 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 ’038 Patent; (2) Petitioner (or any real party-
`
`in-interest) has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the
`
`’038 Patent; (3) Petitioner files this Petition within one year of the date it was served
`
`with a complaint asserting infringement of the ’038 Patent; (4) estoppel provisions
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`of 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) do not prohibit this IPR; and (5) this Petition is filed after
`
`the ’038 Patent was granted.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’038
`
`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 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
`
`2.
`
`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).
`
`3.
`
`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).
`
`
`1
`Based on the claimed priority date of the ’038 patent, Pre-AIA versions of
`
`§102(a) and §103 apply.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`4.
`
`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).
`
`The above prior-art references predate the ’038 Patent, which claims priority
`
`to a provisional application filed on June 10, 2005. IngenioShare asserts an earlier
`
`priority date of April 27, 2005. See Ex. 1012 (IngenioShare’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. §103.3 The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth below,
`
`and are supported by the declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth (Ex. 1003).
`
`
`2
`Petitioner reserves the right to challenge the April 27, 2005 date; the June 10,
`
`2005 date; or any other alleged priority date.
`
`3
`
`“[M]ore than one petition may be necessary . . . when . . . a large number of
`
`claims [are] in litigation[.]” Trial Practice Guide Update at 26 (July 2019). More
`
`than one petition per patent is allowed when the number of claims at issues is large.
`
`See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. UUSI, LLC, IPR2019-00358, Paper 12, 19–20 (P.T.A.B.,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`Ground
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`Claims
`7, 10–12, 22–24,
`33–36, 38–41, 46,
`49, 51–53, 55,
`57–58, 64–66
`
`8, 9, 43, 44, 47,
`48, 50, 54
`37, 42, 56, 59–63,
`67
`45
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`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 Tanigawa in
`combination with Hullfish and Takahashi
`Obvious under §103 in view of Tanigawa in
`combination with Hullfish, Loveland, and
`Takahashi
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE
`A. The ’038 Patent Has Not Been Subject to a Prior Petition
`The ’038 Patent 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).
`
`
`
`
`Aug. 5, 2019) (allowing separate petitions challenging a large number of claims);
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Techs. Inc., IPR2019-00814, Paper 12, 14 (P.T.A.B., Nov.
`
`6, 2019) (similar).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`B.
`
`The Presented Grounds and Argument Are Dissimilar to the Art
`and Arguments Previously Presented to the Office
`Becton Dickinson Factors
`1.
`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 11 (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 10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019). The grounds presented
`
`herein include obviousness challenges applying Tanigawa as a base reference. This
`
`reference was not applied against the Challenged Claims or discussed by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution of the ’038 Patent or its parent applications (nor were
`
`combinations thereof). Bowtech Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC, IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 at
`
`5 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019) (instituting petition where the Examiner did not consider
`
`grounds asserted by the petition).
`
`2.
`
`The ’038 Patent’s Challenged Claims Are a Subset of
`Claims Directed to Substantially Overlapping Subject
`Matter
`The ’038 Patent 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. 10,492,038
`
`patents, with the exception of U.S. Pat. No. 8,744,407, is subject to a terminal
`
`disclaimer, and was examined by the same Examiner.
`
`The ’038 Patent application was filed September 14, 2017. After a cursory
`
`examination, the Examiner allowed it on April 27, 2018—a barely seven months
`
`from the application’s filing—with no intervening office actions. See Ex. 1002, 99.
`
`Specifically, the Examiner found that “Claims 1-5 are allowance [sic] according to
`
`history of rejection of parent case and Terminal Disclaims filed and approved.” See
`
`id., 104. Thereafter, the Applicant filed five Requests for Continued Examination
`
`to amend the claims. See id., 137, 197, 286, 484, 537. The Examiner repeatedly
`
`allowed the claims without issuing any office actions. See id., 164, 278, 424, 517,
`
`682. The Examiner’s cursory examination erroneously allowed the claims of the
`
`’038 Patent despite their obviousness, as set forth below. See infra, §XI.
`
`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. See IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`IngenioShare 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 at 12 (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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`(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.
`
`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 (June 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 (P.T.A.B. July
`
`28, 2020) (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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`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
`
`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 six
`
`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 three 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) (quoting Fintiv at 11 “The Board recognizes, however, that it is often
`
`reasonable for a petitioner to wait to file its petition u