`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00351
`Patent 10,622,842
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`A. Factor 1: It is undisputed that a stay is unlikely to be granted. ...................... 1
`B. Factor 2: Trial will likely begin before the FWD deadline. ........................... 2
`C. Factor 3: There has been significant investment in the district court. ........... 2
`D. Factor 4: Duplicative issues and inefficiencies remain. ................................. 3
`E. Factor 5: Petitioner is a defendant in the district court litigation. .................. 5
`F. Factor 6: The petition is substantively weak. ................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351 (’842 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-reply
`
`
`
`The district court case concerns the same parties, same patent, same claims,
`
`and the same invalidity references. IPRs were intended to be “an effective and
`
`efficient alternative” to district court litigation, but this IPR cannot be such an
`
`alternative under these circumstances. Allowing this IPR to proceed simultaneously
`
`with the district court litigation would result in duplicative work, risk conflicting
`
`decisions, and be an inefficient use of the Board’s finite resources. Institution should
`
`be denied.
`
`A.
`
`Factor 1: It is undisputed that a stay is unlikely to be granted.
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that the district court is unlikely to grant a stay in
`
`the event the Petition is instituted. Instead, Petitioner argues that this factor is neutral
`
`without “specific evidence” relating to this case. Reply at 1. But contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s assertions, Patent Owner did provide specific evidence, including
`
`evidence regarding the stage of the litigation, and reasonably concluded under the
`
`applicable law that a stay is unlikely. See Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Evolved
`
`Wireless LLC, IPR2021-00950, Paper 10 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2021)
`
`(“Evolved”) (finding this factor weighed in favor of denial and denying institution
`
`where patent owner showed a stay was unlikely based on the advanced stage of the
`
`case and past decisions denying stays).
`
`On the other hand, Petitioner did not set forth any argument or evidence that
`
`the district court is likely to grant a stay. Nor has Petitioner indicated that it even
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351 (’842 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-reply
`
`
`intends to file such a motion. Accordingly, this factor weighs against institution. See
`
`Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., IPR2021-01578, Paper 9 at 8 (Mar. 18, 2022)
`
`(finding this factor weighed against institution where there was “no evidence that
`
`Petitioner had requested a stay” and a stay was unlikely given the stage of the
`
`proceeding).
`
`B.
`
`Factor 2: Trial will likely begin before the FWD deadline.
`
`Prior to transfer, the district court case was on track for trial in March 2023—
`
`at least five months before a final written decision would be due. And while the
`
`expected trial date is less certain now that the case has been transferred, there is no
`
`reason to believe that the trial will occur after the final written decision deadline.
`
`Accordingly, this factor also favors denial. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 7–8, at 13 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (“Fintiv II”) (denying
`
`institution where the district court trial was scheduled two months before the
`
`deadline for final written decision); Evolved at 13 (same); Immersion Systems LLC
`
`v. Midas Green Techs., LLC, IPR2021-01176, Paper 16 at 12–13 (PTAB Jan. 6,
`
`2022) (“Midas”) (three months).
`
`C.
`
`Factor 3: There has been significant investment in the district court.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the Board should simply ignore the parties’ and the
`
`district court’s significant investment in the district court litigation because some of
`
`the work done in that case does not directly relate to invalidity issues. This is
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351 (’842 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-reply
`
`
`contrary to the Board’s decisions finding that “substantive orders related to the
`
`patent at issue,” including claim construction orders entered by the district court,
`
`favor discretionary denial. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9–
`
`10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential, designated May 5, 2020) (“Fintiv I”). For
`
`example, in Midas, the Board found the fact that a claim construction order had been
`
`entered and discovery was underway was “not insignificant” and denied institution.
`
`Midas at 13–14. The Board further found that “although it appears that much is left
`
`to occur in the related district court litigation, the evidenced expended effort is
`
`nevertheless not insubstantial.” Id. at 14.
`
`The same reasoning applies here. Claim construction briefing is now
`
`completed, the parties have exchanged infringement and invalidity contentions, and
`
`discovery is well underway (Ex. 1022). This is not insubstantial. “[T]he level of
`
`investment and effort already expended on claim construction and invalidity
`
`contentions” favors discretionary denial. Fintiv II at 13–14.
`
`D.
`
`Factor 4: Duplicative issues and inefficiencies remain.
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that the district court case involves the same patent,
`
`same claims, and the same invalidity references. And to erase any doubt as to the
`
`complete overlap regarding invalidity arguments and evidence, Petitioner’s
`
`invalidity contentions incorporate by reference its arguments and evidence in this
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351 (’842 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-reply
`
`
`IPR. Thus, this proceeding is entirely duplicative of the issues that will be addressed
`
`by the district court.
`
`Given this overlap, 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.” Reply at 3. This narrow
`
`stipulation is insufficient and fails to resolve concerns of duplicative issues and
`
`inconsistent rulings. The stipulation only concerns the particular obviousness
`
`combinations directed to particular claims for which trial is instituted. Petitioner,
`
`however, would still be free to raise different combinations based on the same
`
`references, or even the same combinations directed to different claims, as well as
`
`anticipation arguments based on the same references. Thus, all of the references at
`
`issue in this IPR will continue to be litigated in district court.
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, its limited stipulation is not “nearly
`
`identical” to the stipulation in Sand. Reply at 3. As explained by the Board in Sand,
`
`the petitioners could have stipulated that they “would not pursue any ground raised
`
`or that could have been reasonably raised in an IPR, i.e., any ground that could be
`
`raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications.”
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC, Continental Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 at 12 n.5 (PTAB June 16, 2020). Such a stipulation “might better
`
`address concerns regarding duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351 (’842 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-reply
`
`
`in a much more substantial way.” Id. “Likewise, such a stipulation might help ensure
`
`that an IPR functions as a true alternative to litigation in relation to grounds that
`
`could be at issue in an IPR.” Id.
`
`Petitioner did not make the type of stipulation described in Sand, or even a
`
`reasonable narrower one. Indeed, the Board found that the narrower stipulation
`
`offered by the petitioner in Sand—which was still broader than Petitioner’s
`
`stipulation here—only weighed “marginally in favor of not exercising discretion.”
`
`Sand at 12; see also Evolved at 15 (finding this factor weighed against institution
`
`despite Petitioner’s limited stipulation). Factor 4 thus weighs against institution.
`
`E.
`
`Factor 5: Petitioner is a defendant in the district court litigation.
`
`There is no dispute that Petitioner is the defendant in the district court
`
`litigation. Thus, this factor does not favor institution, it favors discretionary denial.
`
`See Fintiv II at 15; Midas at 18; Evolved at 16.
`
`F.
`
`Factor 6: The petition is substantively weak.
`
`This factor favors denial for the reasons set forth in the POPR.
`
`
`
`Date: June 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Brett Cooper/
`Brett Cooper, Reg. No. 55,085
`bcooper@raklaw.com
`rak_scramoge@raklaw.com
`Reza Mirzaie, Reg. No. 69,138
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351 (’842 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-reply
`
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Russ, August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Tel.: 310-826-7474
`Fax: 310-826-6991
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner,
`Scramoge Technology, Ltd.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00351 (’842 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-reply
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on June
`
`1, 2022 by filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to
`
`End system, as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following
`
`attorneys of record for the Petitioner:
`
`Scott T. Jarratt (Reg No. 70,297)
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Andrew S. Ehmke (Reg No. 50,271)
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Calmann J. Clements (Reg No. 66,910)
`calmann.clements.ipr@haynesboone.com
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Phone: (972) 739-8663
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`
`/Brett Cooper/
`Brett Cooper, Reg. No. 55,085
`bcooper@raklaw.com
`rak_scramoge@raklaw.com
`Russ, August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Tel.: 310-826-7474
`Fax: 310-826-6991
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`