`U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CHANEL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MOLO DESIGN, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBITS 2034-2037
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161
`
`
`
`Exhibits 2034-2037 filed with Patent Owner’s Sur-reply directly rebut
`
`Petitioner’s false implication made in Petitioner’s Reply. This rebuttal evidence goes
`
`to the issue of copying as evidence of non-obviousness. The arguments raised in
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply were not new, and Petitioner only objected to the exhibits
`
`themselves. As discussed herein, the Board should exercise its general discretion
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) and deny Petitioner’s Motion to Strike because the
`
`submission is the only meaningful opportunity for Patent Owner to rebut Petitioner’s
`
`false implication.
`
`
`
`In their Reply, Petitioner stated that “Molo presents no evidence that Chanel
`
`… acquired a softwall sample before purchasing a competing product.” Paper 30 at
`
`11. The implication is clear: Petitioner Chanel never purchased or had possession of
`
`Patent Owner’s relevant product and could not copy it. To directly rebut this false
`
`implication, Patent Owner submitted Exhibits 2034-2037 that show purchase of a
`
`“softwall sample” by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`regarding the submission of new evidence in a Sur-reply. However, Patent owner
`
`respectfully notes that under § 42.5, the Board has wide discretion in almost all
`
`aspects of this proceeding. Indeed, under § 42.5(b) “[t]he Board may waive or
`
`suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on the waiver
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161
`
`
`or suspension.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) As such, the Board has discretion to suspend §
`
`42.23(b) and allow Patent Owner’s probative rebuttal evidence. See e.g., Belden Inc.
`
`v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1081 ((Fed. Cir. 2015) (stating that the Board has
`
`authority to “waive or suspend a regulation that the patent owner believes impairs
`
`its opportunity to respond”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner did not object to the authenticity or admissibility of Exhibits 2034-
`
`2037, as they are merely Petitioner’s business records. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 803(6).
`
`Each of Exhibits 2034-2037 is an electronic correspondence (i.e., an email) between
`
`Petitioner’s employee and Patent Owner’s employee. Consequently, there is
`
`minimal prejudice to Petitioner in allowing these exhibits, as they were already in
`
`Petitioner’s possession.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is entitled by law to present rebuttal evidence. If the rules in
`
`prohibit such evidence, then those rules violate Due Process and the Administrative
`
`Procedures Act (APA).1 Under the APA, the Board “must allow ‘a party . . . to submit
`
`rebuttal evidence . . . as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.’”
`
`Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (vacating a Board
`
`decision where patent owner “ha[d] not had the required opportunity to present
`
`evidence” to counter a factual assertion relied on in the Board’s decision). Here,
`
`
`1 Patent Owner must challenge the rule in this venue to preserve a rule challenge for appeal. Ciena Corp. v. Oyster
`Optics, LLC, 958 F.3d 1157, 1159-62 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161
`
`
`Petitioner implied a factual assertion relevant to non-obviousness—it is insufficient
`
`for Patent Owner to address this false implication solely with attorney argument in
`
`the Sur-reply. Not allowing Patent Owner the opportunity to rebut this false
`
`implication is prejudicial to Patent Owner and a violation of the APA and Due
`
`Process.
`
`
`
`With regard to Petitioner’s arguments regarding the untimeliness of Exhibits
`
`2034-2037, Patent Owner notes that Rule 42.5(c)(3) excuses late actions if, inter
`
`alia, it “would be in interests of justice.” 37 C.F.R. 42.5(c)(2); see Hengdian Grp.
`
`DMEGC Magnetics Co., Ltd. v. Gitachi Metals, Ltd., IPR2017-01312, Paper 14 at 4
`
`(PTAB Jan. 3, 2018) (“In deciding whether the interests of justice support
`
`considering the merits of a late filing, [the Board examines] the prejudice that would
`
`result from considering or not considering the merits”). As noted, there is minimal
`
`prejudice to Petitioner to retaining these exhibits in the record. The prejudice to
`
`Patent Owner results from admitting Petitioner’s false implication but limiting
`
`Patent Owner to attorney argument in its rebuttal. As such, the prejudice from
`
`striking Patent Owner’s exhibits would outweigh any prejudice to Petitioner.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 28, 2023
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Michael Chibib
`Michael Chibib
`Registration No. 40,950
`Bracewell LLP
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 472-7800 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`michael.chibib@bracewell.com
`Jared D. Schuettenhelm
`Registration No. 59,539
`Patrick Connolly
`Registration No. 69,570
`BRACEWELL LLP
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7018
`(206) 204-6200 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`jared.schuettenhelm@bracewell.com
`patrick.connolly@bracewell.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Molo
`Design, Ltd
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was
`
`served on counsel of record for PETITIONERS on APRIL 28, 2023, by causing a
`
`copy to be delivered via electronic mail to the following counsel of record:
`
`
`Gina Cornelio (lead counsel)
`Registration No. 64,336
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 400
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: (303) 629-3400
`Fax: (303) 629-3450
`cornelio.gina@dorsey.com
`
`Geoffrey M. Godfrey (pro hac vice)
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`Columbia Center
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Tel: (206) 903-8800
`Fax: (206) 299-3849
`godfrey.geoff@dorsey.com
`
`
`Dated: April 28, 2023
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`Mark A. Miller
`Registration No. 44,944
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`111 South Main Street, Suite
`2100 Salt Lake City, UT
`84111-2176
`Tel: (801) 933-4068
`Fax: (801) 933-7373
`miller.mark@dorsey.com
`
`Shannon L. Bjorklund (pro hac
`vice)
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 340-2600
`Fax: (612) 677-3086
`bjorklund.shannon@dorsey.com
`/s/ Michael Chibib
`Michael Chibib
`Registration No. 40,950
`Bracewell LLP
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 472-7800 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`michael.chibib@bracewell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161
`
`
`
`Jared D. Schuettenhelm
`Registration No. 59,539
`Patrick Connolly
`Registration No. 69,570
`BRACEWELL LLP
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7018
`(206) 204-6200 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`jared.schuettenhelm@bracewell.com
`patrick.connolly@bracewell.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Molo
`Design, Ltd
`
`
`
`