UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S ASSERTED GROUNDS AND REFERENCES ........... 1
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER THE FINTIV
`III.
`FACTORS ............................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Parallel Proceedings ............................................................................. 3
`B.
`Factor 1 weighs against institution, as there is no stay in the district
`court now and no evidence exists that a stay may be granted in the future. ............. 5
`C.
`Factor 2 weighs against institution, as trial in the district court is
`scheduled to be completed seven months before the FWD. ..................................... 6
`D.
`Factor 3 weighs against institution, as claim construction proceedings
`in the district court case are almost completed, briefing and oral argument on
`Google’s § 101 motion are already completed, and discovery will likely be under
`way either before or shortly after the date the institution decision is due. ............... 8
`E.
`Factor 4 weighs against institution, as there is overlap between this
`IPR and the district court case. ............................................................................... 10
`F.
`Factor 5 weighs against institution, as Petitioner is a Respondent in
`the parallel district court case. ................................................................................ 12
`G.
`Factor 6 weighs against institution. .................................................... 12
`H.
`Summary Regarding Fintiv Factors ................................................... 13
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ....................................... passim
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) ....................................... passim
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00123, Paper 14 (PTAB May 15, 2020) ................................................ 5
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00158, Paper 16 (PTAB May 20, 2020) ............................................ 5, 8
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ................................. 2, 7, 11, 13
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................... 1, 4, 8, 13
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...................................................................................... 1, 2, 5, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`Exhibits
`
`Description
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal. April 30, 2021), Dkt. 1 (Complaint)
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021), Dkt. 30 (Joint Case Management
`Statement)
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal. April 7, 2022), Dkt. 72 (Amended Scheduling Order)
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal. April 13, 2022), Dkt. 73 (Amended Scheduling
`Order)
`Google’s Oct. 19, 2021, Invalidity Contentions in Google, LLC
`f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal.)
`“Silicon Valley’s Home Court: Patent Trends in the Northern
`District of California.” White & Case Newsflash (Mar. 18,
`2020).
`U.S. Patent No. 10,018,371
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition challenges claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,194,597 (Ex. 1001)
`
`under one ground of unpatentability. Instituting review in this IPR would cause the
`
`parties and the Board to incur significant inefficiencies and wasted efforts of the type
`
`warned of in Fintiv and NHK Spring. Over a year ago, on April 30, 2020, Petitioner
`
`Google filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California against Patent Owner EcoFactor for a declaratory judgement of non-
`
`infringement of the ‘597 patent. EcoFactor filed its counter-claim on July 13, 2021.
`
`That district court case has progressed substantially, with claim construction briefing
`
`under way and the Markman hearing scheduled for July 22, 2022—and with the
`
`court having already received all briefing and oral argument on Google’s dispositive
`
`motion under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, fact discovery is likely to close sometime in
`
`the spring of 2023, and trial will likely occur shortly before the Final Written
`
`Decision would be due in this IPR proceeding (should it be instituted). Further, the
`
`district court case involves the same claim construction standard and the same
`
`claims, invalidity theories, and prior art as this IPR. Under the PTAB’s precedential
`
`orders in Fintiv and NHK Spring, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny
`
`institution under § 314(a).
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S ASSERTED GROUNDS AND REFERENCES
`
`The Petition asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`• “Claims 1-24 are obvious over Ehlers ’330 in view of the knowledge of
`
`a POSITA and Wruck.” (Pet. at 6).
`
`III.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER THE FINTIV
`
`FACTORS
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) gives the Board discretion to deny institution because of
`
`efficiency considerations stemming from parallel proceedings on the same patent.
`
`See NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept.
`
`12, 2018) (precedential, designated May 7, 2019) (“NHK Spring”). The PTAB
`
`recently promulgated six factors for determining whether discretionary denial due to
`
`efficiency considerations relating to parallel proceedings is appropriate (the “Fintiv
`
`factors”):
`
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be
`granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`
`2.
`
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision;
`
`3.
`
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties;
`
`4.
`
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are
`the same party; and
`
`6.
`
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion,
`including the merits.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential, designated May 5, 2020) (“Fintiv Order”) at 6; Apple Inc., v. Fintiv,
`
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (order denying institution)
`
`(informative, designated July 13, 2020) (“Fintiv ID”) at 7–8. Here, all six Fintiv
`
`factors weigh against institution.
`
`A.
`
`Parallel Proceedings
`
`Over a year ago, on April 30, 2021, Petitioner Google LLC (“Google”) filed
`
`a declaratory judgement action in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California against Patent Owner EcoFactor alleging that Google does not infringe
`
`the ‘597 patent. Ex. 2001, Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-
`
`cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. April 30, 2021), Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”). EcoFactor filed a
`
`counterclaim on July 13, 2021. Pet. at 72; Ex. 1018, Count III.
`
`This Petition for inter partes review was filed on February 3, 2022, nearly
`
`nine months after Google started the litigation and over six months after EcoFactor
`
`filed its counterclaim.
`
`The district court case is substantially advanced, as the parties have exchanged
`
`initial invalidity, infringement, and damages contentions, and claim construction
`
`briefing is already in progress. Ex. 2002, Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v.
`
`EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021), Dkt. 30 (Joint Case
`
`Management Statement) at 6-7; Ex. 2003, Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021), Dkt. 30 (Amended
`
`Scheduling Order). The Markman hearing is scheduled for July 22, 2022. Ex. 2004,
`
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. April
`
`13, 2022), Dkt. 73 (Amended Scheduling Order). Assuming the claim construction
`
`order issues within three months of the Markman hearing, fact discovery will close
`
`five months later, which will be approximately March 2023. Ex. 2002 at 7-8. Expert
`
`discovery will close 28 days later, in approximately April 2023, and summary
`
`judgment briefing will be completed 59 days later, in approximately June 2023. Id.
`
`This is approximately two months before the Final Written Decision would be due
`
`(August 2023) in this IPR proceeding (should it be instituted). The district court will
`
`also soon decide Google’s fully briefed and argued motion for judgment on the
`
`pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 targeting every claim of the four patents-in-suit
`
`(including the ‘597 patent). Certain findings in the district court case will likely be
`
`instructive and may be dispositive of certain issues in this IPR proceeding. These
`
`issues may include claim construction and invalidity issues.
`
`The district court case qualifies as a parallel proceeding that justifies
`
`discretionary denial. Parties expend enormous resources in district court cases, and
`
`district court is a forum where parties can litigate their disputes fully and fairly. See
`
`Fintiv Order at 6 (explaining that the Fintiv factors “relate to whether efficiency,
`
`fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”); see also, e.g., Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd., IPR2020-00123, Paper 14 (PTAB May 15,
`
`2020) at 11 (denying institution where it “would be an inefficient use of Board, party,
`
`and judicial resources”); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00158, Paper 16
`
`at 4 (PTAB May 20, 2020) (same).
`
`The Board has previously denied three IPR petitions filed by Google against
`
`EcoFactor patents based on the Board’s discretion under § 314(a). See IPR2020-
`
`00946, Paper 11 (Nov. 18, 2020); IPR2020-00947, Paper 11 (Nov. 18, 2020);
`
`IPR2020-00968, Paper 10 (Nov. 18, 2020). While those petitions involved different
`
`patents asserted in a different forum (International Trade Commission), the same
`
`rationale applies here. The Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution
`
`here, just as it did for the earlier three IPR petitions against EcoFactor patents.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 1 weighs against institution, as there is no stay in the
`
`district court now and no evidence exists that a stay may be
`
`granted in the future.
`
`Factor 1 concerns whether the district court granted a stay or evidence exists
`
`that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted. Fintiv Order at 6; Fintiv ID at
`
`12. This factor weighs against institution.
`
`No stay has been issued in the concurrent Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v.
`
`EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 litigation. In fact, contrary to the statement in the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`Petition that “Petitioner intends to seek a corresponding stay of the litigation,” (Pet.
`
`at 73), Google has not filed any motion to stay the district court case.
`
`Further, it is unlikely that the district court case will be stayed pending IPR.
`
`Google has not requested any stay pending IPR in the district court case. The stay is
`
`even more unlikely considering the advanced stage of the district court case, with
`
`claim construction briefing closing in the next two weeks, with all briefing and oral
`
`argument on Google’s § 101 motion already concluded, and with fact discovery
`
`poised to begin. And fact discovery in the district court is set to close in the March
`
`to April 2023 time frame, while the institution decision is due here in August 2023.
`
`See Ex. 2002. Instituting this IPR will not promote judicial efficiency. Rather,
`
`substantial work in the district court will have been completed even before the due
`
`date of an institution decision in this IPR.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 2 weighs against institution, as trial in the district court is
`
`scheduled to be completed seven months before the FWD.
`
`Factor 2 relates to proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`
`statutory deadline for a final written decision. Fintiv Order at 9; Fintiv ID at 12. The
`
`statutory deadline for the final written decision (FWD) for this IPR Petition would
`
`be in August 2023. While the trial in the district court case has not been set, it is
`
`likely to be in the fall of 2023, which is just months after the Final Written Decision
`
`would be due in this IPR proceeding (should it be instituted). See Ex. 2006, “Silicon
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`Valley’s Home Court: Patent Trends in the Northern District of California.” White
`
`& Case Newsflash (Mar. 18, 2020) (Finding the median time to trial in the Northern
`
`District of California is 861 days, which from April 30, 2021 would be September
`
`8, 2023.).
`
`Under Factor 2, this weighs against institution. As NHK Spring explained, one
`
`of the primary objectives of the AIA was “to provide an effective and efficient
`
`alternative” to parallel litigation. NHK Spring at 19–20 (quoting General Plastic at
`
`16–17) (emphasis added). Although Finitiv involved a situation where the trial
`
`occurred before the FWD, here the FWD would occur no later than August 8, 2023,
`
`which is only a month before the expected trial date. Thus, the present IPR
`
`proceeding (if instituted) would not be an “efficient alternative” to the parallel
`
`litigation.
`
`The Petition’s argument regarding Factor 2 (Pet. at 73) is wrong. For example,
`
`Google’s argues that “the co-pending litigation is at its inception” and that “[n]either
`
`the parties nor the court has invested substantial resources therein.” Pet. at 73. But
`
`Google provided its initial invalidity contentions over six months ago, claim
`
`construction briefing is nearly concluded, and the district court has received all
`
`briefing and oral argument on Google’s § 101 motion seeking to invalidate every
`
`asserted patent claim (including every claim of the ’597 patent). Ex. 2002. Further,
`
`substantial work will have been undertaken by both parties by the time the FWD is
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`due, including the completion of fact and expert discovery, and briefing on any
`
`remaining dispositive motions.
`
`Here, this IPR cannot be an alternative to a trial in the district court likely to
`
`occur shortly after the date of the FWD deadline. This alone provides a compelling
`
`reason for the Board to exercise its discretion to deny institution. Fintiv ID at 13;
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00158, Paper 16 (PTAB May 20, 2020) at
`
`9.
`
`D.
`
`Factor 3 weighs against institution, as claim construction
`
`proceedings in the district court case are almost completed,
`
`briefing and oral argument on Google’s § 101 motion are already
`
`completed, and discovery will likely be under way either before or
`
`shortly after the date the institution decision is due.
`
`Factor 3 relates to investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`
`parties. Fintiv Order at 9; Fintiv ID at 14. Here, the parties and the district court have
`
`already (and will continue to) invest enormous effort and resources.
`
`Importantly, this factor is judged from the date of the institution decision,
`
`which is expected to be in August 2022. See Fintiv Order at 9 (considering “the
`
`amount and type of work already completed in the parallel litigation by the court and
`
`the parties at the time of the institution decision”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`The initial district court case was filed over a year ago, back in April 2021,
`
`and the parties and the district court have expended substantial resources since then.
`
`This includes the exchange of invalidity, infringement, and damages contentions,
`
`substantial claim construction briefing, and full briefing and oral argument on
`
`Google’s § 101 motion for judgment on the pleadings that seeks a case-dispositive
`
`invalidity ruling against all 70 claims of the four patents-in-suit (including all ’597
`
`patent claims). These activities have already required significant investment of time
`
`and resources from the parties and the district court. In addition, a Markman hearing
`
`and technology tutorial will also be completed prior to the institution date. Ex. 2003.
`
`And by August 2022, the parties in the district court case will be poised to start fact
`
`discovery either before or shortly after the institution date.
`
`Further, the Petition could have been filed much sooner, but Petitioner waited
`
`nine months —on February 3, 2022—to file the Petition after the district court case
`
`began on April 3, 2021. This delay is inexcusable particularly since Petitioner
`
`submitted invalidity contentions in the district court case months before (on October
`
`19, 2021) it filed the present Petition, asserting the same Ehlers ‘330, knowledge of
`
`a POSITA, and Wruck references as relied upon here. Ex. 2004, Google’s Oct. 19,
`
`2021, Invalidity Contentions in Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-
`
`21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal.), Exhibit A-24 at 1, Exhibit B-11 at 25. Further, EcoFactor
`
`had already asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,018,371 (which claims priority to the ‘597
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`patent) against Google in the ITC. Ex. 1017; Ex. 2007, U.S. Patent No. 10,018,371.
`
`Thus, Google was already familiar with the subject matter of the ‘597 patent.
`
`Thus, Petitioner failed to file the Petition “expeditiously.” See Fintiv Order at
`
`11. It was not filed “promptly after becoming aware of the claims being asserted”
`
`(nine months earlier in April 30, 2021), nor around the time Google served invalidity
`
`contentions (three months earlier in October 2021). And this unjustified delay
`
`prejudiced Patent Owner. For example, Petitioner’s timing imposes unfair costs to
`
`Patent Owner, ensuring that the Patent Owner would continue to invest heavily
`
`through claim construction, motion practice, discovery, and costs and expenses
`
`associated with those activities.
`
`Accordingly, Factor 3 weighs against institution.
`
`E.
`
`Factor 4 weighs against institution, as there is overlap between
`
`this IPR and the district court case.
`
`Factor 4 relates to overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`
`parallel proceeding. Fintiv Order at 12; Fintiv ID at 13. This factor weighs against
`
`institution because the same claims and claim construction standard are at issue in
`
`both proceedings, and there is substantial overlap in invalidity theories and prior art.
`
`For example, this IPR challenges the claims of the ‘597 patent based on Ehlers
`
`‘330 in view of the knowledge of a POSITA and Wruck in Ground 1. Pet. at 6.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`Google asserts substantially overlapping prior art and invalidity theories in the
`
`district court case, asserting Ehlers ‘330, the knowledge of a POSITA, and Wruck
`
`against the ‘567 patent. In the district court case, Google provided invalidity
`
`contentions chart “Exhibit A-24,” which charts Ehlers ‘330 and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA against the claims of the ‘597 patent. Ex. 2005 at Exhibit A-24. Moreover,
`
`Wruck is also asserted as a secondary reference against the ‘597 in Google’s district
`
`court invalidity contentions “B” exhibits. See, e.g., Ex. 2005, Google’s Oct. 19,
`
`2021, Invalidity Contentions in Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-
`
`21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal.), Exhibit B-11 at 25, Exhibit A-24 at 1 (“Claims 1-24 of the
`
`‘597 patent anticipated and/or rendered obvious by Ehlers ‘330 or in combination
`
`with any of the other references identified in these contentions, including in Exhibit
`
`B hereto.”)
`
`Further, both this IPR and the district court proceedings are governed by the
`
`same Phillips claim construction standard. Thus, this IPR involves the same claim
`
`construction standard, claims, invalidity theories, and prior art. See NHK Spring at
`
`19–20. Here, just as in NHK Spring, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of
`
`conflicting decisions [are] particularly strong.” Fintiv Order at 12. This factor
`
`weighs against institution.
`
`The Petition states that “the parties have neither narrowed the asserted claims
`
`nor the asserted prior art references and thus it is premature to evaluate the eventual
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`overlap between the proceedings.” Pet. at 73. But this ignores that Google is
`
`applying in both the Petition and the district court the same art to all of the claims of
`
`the ‘597 patent—and ignores that Google is the plaintiff in the district court action
`
`who is seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to all claims of the ‘597 patent.
`
`F.
`
`Factor 5 weighs against institution, as Petitioner is a Respondent
`
`in the parallel district court case.
`
`Factor 5 concerns whether the petitioner and the respondents in the parallel
`
`proceeding are the same parties. Fintiv Order at 13; Fintiv ID at 15. This factor
`
`weighs against institution because Petitioner Google is the plaintiff in the district
`
`court case (a declaratory judgment action). Ex. 2001, Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc.
`
`v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. April 30, 2021) (Complaint).
`
`G.
`
`Factor 6 weighs against institution.
`
`Factor 6 relates to other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`
`discretion. Fintiv Order at 14; Fintiv ID at 15. Here, Factor 6 supports discretionary
`
`denial for additional reasons. For example, having an IPR Final Written Decision
`
`issue right before the district court trial is likely to occur is procedurally unfair to
`
`Patent Owner. For example, if the claims are confirmed in FWD, Petitioner would
`
`be bound by IPR estoppel and not be able to assert any invalidity grounds it raised
`
`or could have raised. But having dispositive motions completed long before the IPR
`
`FWD would eliminate that benefit to Patent Owner and the district court during the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`summary judgement phase. Moreover, there is no other circumstance that favors
`
`institution.
`
`H.
`
`Summary Regarding Fintiv Factors
`
`Factor 1 Weighs against institution
`Factor 2 Weighs against institution
`Factor 3 Weighs against institution
`Factor 4 Weighs against institution
`Factor 5 Weighs against institution
`Factor 6 Weighs against institution
`
`
`
`In summary, all Fintiv factors weigh against institution. The district court trial
`
`is expected to be scheduled around the time the final written decision in this IPR
`
`would be due. Further, the level of investment in the district court action is already
`
`high and growing more substantial by the day. The parties in the district court case
`
`have nearly completed claim construction briefing and have already completed
`
`briefing and oral argument on a dispositive motion under § 101. And, by the time an
`
`institution decision issues in August 2022, the district court will already have
`
`conducted a Markman hearing and technology tutorial, and the parties will be ready
`
`to start fact discovery. Instituting review under these “facts and circumstances would
`
`be an inefficient use of the Board’s resources.” NHK Spring at 19–20. Under §
`
`314(a) and the totality of the Fintiv factors, institution should be denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, institution should be denied.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 6, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Philip X. Wang
`
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`pwang@raklaw.com
`rak_ecofactor@raklaw.com
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`CERTIFICATION REGARDING WORD COUNT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d), Patent Owner certifies that there are 2,748
`
`
`
`
`words in the paper excluding the portions exempted under 37 C.F.R. §42.24(a)(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Philip X. Wang
`
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`pwang@raklaw.com
`rak_ecofactor@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on May
`
`6, 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:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`Elizabeth Laughton
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`laughton@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Philip X. Wang
`
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`pwang@raklaw.com
`rak_ecofactor@raklaw.com
`
`
`Dated: May 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
