`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MYPAQ HOLDINGS LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00311
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,477,514
`
`_______________________
`
`SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) replies to the arguments in Petitioners’ Reply (Paper
`
`No. 9) concerning PO’s request for a 35 U.S.C. 314(a) discretionary denial.
`
`Factor 1. Here a motion to stay has not been sought because Petitioners
`
`know it would be denied. PO’s Preliminary Response cites recent public remarks
`
`from the presiding judge indicating his clear preference not to stay lawsuits
`
`pending IPR outcomes. POPR, 13 (citing Ex. 2004). The article is the only
`
`evidence from the presiding judge explaining that the “one or two” cases
`
`previously stayed involved a “plaintiff [who] has first sued other companies over a
`
`patent in a different district, and the defendant in that case has initiated a PTAB
`
`review that is well underway by the time another company is sued in the Western
`
`District of Texas.” Ex. 2004. The underlying litigation was initially filed in the
`
`Western District of Texas. This is not an earlier filed IPR already “well under
`
`way.” It is speculation to ignore the evidence and assume a stay will be sought
`
`when the presiding judge has informed the world he denies stays in all but a very
`
`few, exceptional situations involving conditions not present here.
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC is distinguishable. There, the Board rejected a PO’s
`
`generic argument that the relevant district court routinely denied stays “in the
`
`absence of specific evidence.” Id. Here, PO has provided the most relevant and
`
`specific evidence possible: a statement from the presiding judge addressing the
`
`issue. Importantly, the presiding judge made this statement knowing his words
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`were to be published so they could be relied upon by IPR Panels like this one
`
`making institution decisions. There is no evidence that the presiding judge has ever
`
`granted a stay in any case similarly postured to this one.
`
`Petitioners argue “a stay is more likely here because PO has admitted that it
`
`would not face any particularized prejudice from a stay.” Reply, 1. First,
`
`Petitioners mischaracterize the record. There has been no such admission. Second,
`
`PO stated that it has a “strong interest in the prompt vindication of its patent
`
`rights.” Ex. 1021, 6. Petitioner’s own cited case—CyWee Group Ltd—confirms
`
`“the interest in prompt enforcement of patent rights is entitled to weight” against a
`
`stay. Id. at *3. PO’s stated interest in prompt enforcement weighs against a stay.
`
`No stay has been granted. None will. This supports discretionary denial.
`
`Factor 2. Petitioners concede the scheduled May 2023 trial date is almost
`
`two months prior to the current deadline for a FWD. Reply, 2-3. Petitioners ask the
`
`Panel to assume the schedule is likely to slip due to foreign discovery issues1 or
`
`speculate that the case may be transferred (within the same District). Reply, 2-3.
`
`
`1 Petitioners’ footnote that PO “has not yet started the foreign discovery
`
`process” (Reply, 3 n.2) is incorrect. PO has been working diligently to prepare
`
`these requests and even corresponding with one of Petitioners for information
`
`relevant to completing them.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`Petitioners’ speculative arguments are contrary to the known facts. The presiding
`
`judge granted MyPAQ early discovery “to be able to keep this case on track” (Ex.
`
`1022, 19). The presiding judge has made clear he is going to do what it takes to
`
`avoid foreign discovery delaying trial. Id.
`
`The transfer motion will be denied (or granted) before an institution
`
`decision. Speculation on whether a transfer will occur is unnecessary when the
`
`Board will have the transfer decision before an institution decision is made.
`
`Further, the court recently appointed a technical advisor to advise on the technical
`
`aspects of the case, including summary judgment motions on invalidity. Ex. 2015
`
`[Order Appointing Technical Advisor]. This, along with the court’s efforts to keep
`
`the current Markman hearing date, suggest a transfer (and any delay) is unlikely.
`
`Petitioners cite Micron Technology, Inc. and Google LLC to argue that a trial
`
`date set a few months before a FWD is due makes this factor neutral. Neither case
`
`supports Petitioners’ assertion. In Micron, the court had not set a trial date due to
`
`COVID-19 delays. Micron, 12-13. In Google, the Board discussed COVID-19
`
`delays and court closures as the primary reason for the unpredictability in the
`
`district court schedule. Google, 12-14. Without the same concerns regarding the
`
`global pandemic as were present in 2020, Fintiv’s instructions to weigh this factor
`
`in favor of denial of institution should be taken at face value.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`Factor 3. By the time of institution, preliminary invalidity and infringement
`
`contentions will have been served, the Markman hearing completed, and discovery
`
`(foreign and domestic) well under way. As to the issue of validity, final invalidity
`
`contentions are due on June 29, 2022. Ex. 1014, 4. Fact and expert discovery will
`
`close well before a FWD issues.
`
`Petitioners argue that “[i]t was reasonable [ ] to wait to know which
`
`independent claims PO was asserting to ensure all claims could be addressed
`
`efficiently in a single Petition.” Reply, 4. Petitioners’ excuse for delaying is
`
`illusory. Petitioners challenged all claims, not just the asserted claims. POPR, 17-
`
`18. There was no reason to wait.
`
`Factor 4. Petitioners’ Reply does not address the arguments presented in the
`
`POPR. Instead, Petitioners argue that their stipulation “is broader than the
`
`stipulation approved of in Sand Revolution . . . and ensures that there will be no
`
`overlap between the PTAB and district court invalidity arguments.” Reply, 5.
`
`However, Petitioners’ stipulation falls far short of that required in Sotera Wireless,
`
`Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020)
`
`(Precedential as to § II.A). Even without the prior art asserted in this IPR,
`
`Petitioners’ stipulation would do little to eliminate or simplify the numerous
`
`invalidity issues already before the district court, or to preclude additional issues
`
`that Petitioners could have but did not raise in its Petition. POPR, 19.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`Factor 5. It is undisputed that the parties here are the parties to the parallel
`
`proceedings. Petitioners cite Protect Animals With Satellites v. Onpoint Systems,
`
`LLC, IPR2021-01483, Paper 11 at 17 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2022) (non-precedential) for
`
`the proposition that this factor is neutral where the trial is scheduled close to the
`
`same time as the FWD. Reply, 5. The timing of the trial is a consideration under
`
`Factor 2, not Factor 5. Fintiv I at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). Further,
`
`Petitioners’ argument conflicts with Fintiv II, which states that, “[b]ecause the
`
`petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party, this
`
`factor weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” Fintiv II, 15.
`
`Factor 6. The court’s recent order appointing technical advisor Dr. Joshua Yi
`
`(discussed above) ensures that validity issues will be reviewed by an individual
`
`with expertise in the relevant technical field, thus obviating a central justification
`
`for allowing PTAB to proceed in parallel with District Court litigation. Dr. Yi has
`
`a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and prior work experience at Freescale
`
`Semiconductor in the same fields at issue in this case. Ex. 2016. Dr. Yi has even
`
`designed processors not unlike the controllers that make up part of the claimed
`
`invention of the patents in suit. See Ex. 2017. In addition, the Petition should not
`
`be instituted because the merits of the Petition are weak. POPR, 21.
`
`Every factor clearly, overwhelmingly weighs in favor of discretionary
`
`denial.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`
`Dated: April 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/James T. Carmichael /
`James T. Carmichael
`Reg. No. 45,306
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Email: jim@carmichaelip.com
`Telephone: (703) 646-9255
`
`Stephen McBride
`Reg. No. 78,396
`Email: stevemcbride@camichaelip.com
`Telephone: (703) 646-9247
`
`Minghui Yang
`Reg No. 71,989
`mitch@carmichaelip.com
`Telephone: (703) 664-9248
`
`Carmichael IP, PLLC
`8000 Towers Crescent Dr., 13th Floor
`Tysons, VA 22182
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), true
`
`and correct copies of the foregoing SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`
`OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE has been served electronically via email
`
`to DLSamsung514IPR@BakerBotts.com and on the following counsel of record
`
`for Petitioner:
`
`
`Eliot D. Williams (eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`Neil Sirota (neil.sirota@bakerbotts.com)
`
`Brett Thompsen (brett.thompsen@bakerbotts.com)
`
`Frank Zhu (frank.zhu@bakerbotts.com)
`
`Paula Heyman (paula.heyman@bakerbotts.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Stephen McBride /
`James T. Carmichael
`Reg. No. 45,306
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Email: jim@carmichaelip.com
`Telephone: (703) 646-9255
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00311
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,477,514
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stephen McBride
`Reg. No. 78,396
`Email: stevemcbride@camichaelip.com
`Telephone: (703) 646-9247
`
`Minghui Yang
`Reg No. 71,989
`mitch@carmichaelip.com
`Telephone: (703) 646-9248
`
`Carmichael IP, PLLC
`8000 Towers Crescent Dr., 13th Floor
`Tysons, VA 22182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`