`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00350
`U.S. Patent No. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S AUTHORIZED REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2022-00350 (U.S. Patent 9,806,565)
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order dated May 18, 2022, Petitioner files this
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR,” Paper 6).
`
`I. THE FINTIV FACTORS FAVOR INSTITUTION
`
`Due to developments in the co-pending litigation that have occurred since
`
`the Petition was filed, the Fintiv factors now more strongly favor institution. Most
`
`importantly, on May 24, the day before this filing, the case was transferred from
`
`the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. A trial date
`
`will not be set until after the Board’s institution decision. Discretionary denial
`
`would thus be inappropriate.
`
`A. Factor 1 is neutral (likelihood of a stay)
`
`In light of the transfer, whether a stay will be granted remains speculative.
`
`Factor 1 is thus neutral without “specific evidence” relating to this case. Sand
`
`Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 at 7 (June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand”) (finding Factor 1
`
`neutral given only generalized evidence); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 15 at 12 (May 13, 2020) (informative).
`
`B. Factor 2 weighs strongly against denial (timing of trial)
`
`This factor weighs strongly against denial. The Texas District Court had
`
`expected to set the trial date at the Markman hearing but instead cancelled the
`
`hearing in view of a May 17 order transferring the case to the Northern District of
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2022-00350 (U.S. Patent 9,806,565)
`California. See Ex.1021 (Docket entries for May 17, 2022: “Case transferred to
`
`Northern District of California.”; “Sealed Order. Signed by Judge Alan D
`
`Albright.”). On May 24, the case was transferred to the Northern District of
`
`California and assigned to Judge Keulen (Case No. 5:22−cv−03041). See Ex.1022.
`
`The initial case management conference in the California District Court will not be
`
`held until August 23, 2022—after the deadline for institution on August 8, 2022.
`
`Ex.1022, 2. Accordingly, no trial date will be set when the Board makes its
`
`institution decision.
`
`Without a trial date, this factor weighs strongly against denial. See
`
`Microchip Technology Inc. v. HD Silicon Solutions LLC, Paper 9 at 10, IPR2021-
`
`01042 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2021) (finding that factor 2 “weighs strongly against
`
`exercising discretion to deny inter partes review” in a case that had been
`
`transferred from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of
`
`California and was “without a trial date set”).
`
`C. Factor 3 favors institution (investment in parallel proceeding)
`
`Patent Owner identifies several litigation-related activities, including
`
`Markman briefing and the Markman hearing that had been scheduled for May 23,
`
`2022, as evidence of significant investment in the parallel proceeding. POPR, 30-
`
`31. The Markman hearing was cancelled in light of the transfer order. See Ex.1020.
`
`Further, the Markman briefing activity is ancillary to the invalidity issues raised in
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2022-00350 (U.S. Patent 9,806,565)
`the Petition. See Sand at 10 (noting that “much of the district court’s investment
`
`relates to ancillary matters untethered to the validity issue itself”). Neither
`
`Petitioner nor Patent Owner construe any claim terms in the Petition or POPR. See
`
`generally Petition, POPR. Under similar circumstances, the Board consistently
`
`finds that Factor 3 favors institution. See, e.g., Huawei Tech. Co., Ltd., v. WSOU
`
`Invs., LLC, IPR2021-00229, Paper 10 at 12-13 (Jul. 1, 2021) (finding factor 3
`
`favoring institution and noting that “much of the invested effort is unconnected to
`
`the patentability challenges”); Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00381, Paper 15,
`
`at 16-17 (Jul. 2, 2021). Further, given the transfer, it is now unknown when fact
`
`and expert discovery on invalidity issues will close.
`
`Accordingly, this factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`D. Factor 4 favors institution (overlap of issues)
`
`While the degree of overlap is only speculative at this point,1 Petitioner
`
`stipulates that it will not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding the prior art
`
`obviousness combinations on which trial is instituted for the claims on which trial
`
`is instituted. In Sand, a nearly identical stipulation was found to effectively address
`
`the risk of duplicative efforts. Sand at 11-12. Accordingly, this factor favors
`
`institution.
`
`
`1 Only preliminary invalidity contentions have been served.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2022-00350 (U.S. Patent 9,806,565)
`E. Factor 5 favors institution (overlapping parties)
`
`Although Petitioner is the defendant in the parallel proceeding, the Board
`
`has noted that this factor “could weigh either in favor of, or against, exercising
`
`discretion to deny institution, depending on which tribunal was likely to address
`
`the challenged patent first.” Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-00846,
`
`Paper 9 at 21 (Oct. 21, 2020). Here, given the transfer, it is unlikely a district court
`
`tribunal will address validity first. This factor thus weighs in favor of institution.
`
`F. Factor 6 favors institution (other circumstances)
`
`The Petition presents a strong case for why the challenged claims are
`
`obvious in light of the cited art. This factor thus weighs against discretionary
`
`denial.
`
`
`
`Date: May 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Scott T. Jarratt/
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 70,297
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Ex.1019
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2022-00350 (U.S. Patent 9,806,565)
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`U.S. 9,806,565
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`Declaration of Dr. Joshua Phinney under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Joshua Phinney
`
`U.S. 8,941,352 to Hong
`
`U.S. 8,922,162 to Park et al.
`U.S. 2009/0021212 to Hasegawa et al.
`
`U.S. 2012/0274148 to Sung et al.
`
`U.S. 8,427,100
`U.S. 8,687,536
`
`Websters II New College Dictionary: Third Edition, (2005)
`
`U.S. 8,339,798 to Minoo et al.
`U.S. 7,375,609
`
`U.S. 8,164,001
`
`Scheduling Order, Scramoge Technology Limited v. Apple Inc.,
`WDTX-6-21-cv-00579 (filed Sept. 28, 2021)
`Plaintiff’s Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions to Apple Inc., Scramoge Technology
`Limited v. Apple Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00579 (served Sept. 7, 2021)
`U.S. 8,643,219
`
`U.S. 2011/0050164
`
`U.S. 9,252,611
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2022-00350 (U.S. Patent 9,806,565)
`Order Cancelling Markman Hearing, Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v.
`Apple Inc., WDTX-6-21-cv-00579 (filed Sept. 28, 2021)
`Docket Sheet, Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., WDTX-6-21-
`cv-00579
`Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR
`Deadlines, Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., NDCA-22-cv-
`03041 (filed May 24, 2022)
`
`Ex.1020
`
`Ex.1021
`
`Ex.1022
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2022-00350 (U.S. Patent 9,806,565)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that service was made on
`the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`Date of service May 25, 2022
`
`Manner of service Electronic Service by E-mail
`
`to Patent Owner’s
`Documents served Petitioner’s Authorized Reply
`Preliminary Response and Exhibits Ex.1020-1022.
`
`Persons served Brett Cooper (bcooper@raklaw.com)
`Reza Mirzaie (rmirzaie@raklaw.com)
`rak_scramoge@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Scott T. Jarratt/
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 70,297
`
`
`
`3
`
`