`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`IPR2022-00948
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,314
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 7
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 9
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 9
`
`III. NOTE ............................................................................................................... 9
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’314 PATENT ............................................................. 9
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY .........................................................................13
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................13
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................14
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................................................14
`
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE .................15
`
`A. Discretionary denial under Fintiv is not appropriate ......................... 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`No evidence regarding a stay ................................................... 15
`
`Parallel proceeding trial date ................................................... 15
`
`Investment in the parallel proceeding ...................................... 17
`
`Overlapping issues with the parallel proceeding ..................... 18
`
`Petitioner is a defendant ........................................................... 18
`
`Other circumstances ................................................................. 19
`
`The Fintiv framework should be overturned ...................................... 19
`
`Discretionary denial under General Plastic is not appropriate .......... 19
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`1. Whether the same petitioner previously filed a
`petition directed to the same claims of the same
`patent ....................................................................................... 20
`
`2. Whether at the time of filing of the first petition the
`petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the
`second petition or should have known of it ......................... 22
`
`3. Whether at the time of filing of the second petition
`the petitioner already received the patent owner’s
`preliminary response to the first petition or received
`the Board’s decision on whether to institute review
`in the first petition .................................................................. 23
`
`4.
`
`The length of time that elapsed between the time the
`petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the
`second petition and the filing of the second petition ........... 23
`
`5. Whether the petitioner provides adequate
`explanation for the time elapsed between the filings
`of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of
`the same patent ....................................................................... 24
`
`6.
`
`The finite resources of the Board and the
`requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a
`final determination not later than 1 year after the
`date on which the Director notices institution of
`review ...................................................................................... 24
`
`D. Discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not appropriate .... 24
`
`X.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 25
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ...................................................... 25
`
`The ’314 Patent is Not Entitled to its Claimed Priority Date ............ 26
`
`Priority was lost when no timely application was filed ..................... 26
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`Several claim limitations in each of the challenged claims 1-26 are
`not sufficiently described in the earlier-filed provisional
`application .......................................................................................... 27
`
`There is no support for a web-browsing server and a media server
`in the ’343 Application. ...................................................................... 28
`
`There is no support for a content extractor that retrieves only the
`portion of the information in the ’343 Application. ........................... 30
`
`There is no support for database associated with the media server
`in the ’343 Application. ...................................................................... 31
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-26 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Danner ................................................................................................ 32
`
`1.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Summary of Danner ................................................................. 33
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 35
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 60
`
`iii. Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 61
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 61
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 62
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 63
`
`vii. Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 69
`
`viii. Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 70
`
`ix.
`
`x.
`
`xi.
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 71
`
`xii. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 76
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`xiii. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 77
`
`xiv. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 77
`
`xv. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 79
`
`xvi. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 79
`
`xvii. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 80
`
`xviii. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 81
`
`xix. Claim 19 ................................................................................... 81
`
`xx. Claim 20 ................................................................................... 86
`
`xxi. Claims 21 and 22...................................................................... 87
`
`xxiii. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 87
`
`xxiv. Claim 24 ................................................................................... 87
`
`xxv. Claim 25 ................................................................................... 88
`
`xxvi. Claim 26 ................................................................................... 88
`
`J.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 5, 10, and 18 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Danner and Woods ..................................................................... 89
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Summary of Woods ................................................................. 89
`
`Reasons to Combine Danner and Woods ................................ 90
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 92
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 93
`
`iii. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 94
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................94
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`XII. MANDATORY NOTICES ...........................................................................95
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ......................................................................... 95
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................... 95
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................ 95
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................97
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................98
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,314 (“Kurganov”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,769,314
`
`Declaration of Dr. David Yarowsky under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. David Yarowsky
`
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/180,343 (“’343 Application”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. App. No. 09/777,406 (“’406
`Application”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,219,136 et al. (“Danner”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,510,417 to Woods et al. (“Woods”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,930,561 to Jaisimha et al. (“Jaisimha”)
`Gundavaram, S. (1996). CGI Programming on the World Wide
`Web (1st ed.). O’Reilly & Associates. (“Gundavaram”)
`
`Yahoo! Finance, finance.yahoo.com:80/q?s=ZICA&d=t. Accessed
`via Internet Archive, www.archive.org (“Yahoo! Finance”)
`
`Yahoo! Weather,
`weather.yahoo.com:80/forecast/Chicago_IL_US_f.html. Accessed
`via Internet Archive, www.archive.org (“Yahoo! Weather”)
`Schedule, Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00968,
`Paper 43 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2022) (“Scheduling Order”)
`Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.1 – Patent Cases,
`Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00968, Paper 48
`(W.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2022) (“Standing Order”)
`
`Compl., Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00571,
`Paper 1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021)
`
`Compl., Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00968,
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`Paper 1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2021)
`
`Ex.1017
`
`
`
`Google LLC v. Parus Holdings Inc., IPR2022-00805, Paper 1
`(PTAB Apr. 4, 2022)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,314 (the “’314 patent,” Ex.1001) relates to accessing
`
`information from websites over the Internet using voice commands from a mobile
`
`device. However, solutions for browsing websites using telephone voice
`
`commands were already well known.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 314(a), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100,
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the Board review and cancel as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 claims 1-26 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the
`
`’314 patent.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’314 patent is eligible for inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR
`
`challenging the patent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`III. NOTE
`Petitioner cites to exhibits’ original page numbers. Emphasis in quoted
`
`material has been added. Claim terms are presented in italics.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’314 PATENT
`
`The ’314 patent describes “a system for retrieving information from a
`
`network such as the Internet.” Ex.1001, Abstract. The system “allow[s] a user to
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`retrieve customized information from a network using speech communication.”
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`Ex.1001, 2:52-54. A user retrieves information via telephone or other voice device
`
`by speaking a command to access a voice browser system. Ex.1001, 2:60-64. The
`
`voice browser system includes a “speech recognition engine” that “converts voice
`
`commands…into data messages.” Ex.1001, 5:42-46. The command is associated
`
`with an information source containing the requested information. Ex.1001, 2:58-
`
`67. The voice browsing system is illustrated in Fig. 3:
`
`websites
`
`voice
`browser
`system
`
`network
`
`voice
`enabled
`devices
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 3 (annotated); Ex.1003,¶24
`
`Using a “clipping client” users can select website information to be retrieved
`
`in response to particular voice commands. Ex.1001, 3:13-16, 3:30-34, 3:42-47.
`
`Because the webpage may contain information undesired by the user (e.g.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`advertisements and links), the clipping client allows the user to select only the
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`desired portion of the webpage. Ex.1001, 3:34-41.
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex.1003,¶25
`
`Next, the clipping client creates a “content descriptor file” indicating where
`
`on the webpage the desired information is located. Ex.1001, 3:42-47. When a user
`
`requests desired information, the content descriptor file is provided to a “content
`
`extraction agent” that extracts the desired information from the webpage. Ex.1001,
`
`6:18-27.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 6 (annotated); Ex.1003,¶26
`
`A “speech synthesis engine” converts data retrieved from the webpage to
`
`audio and then transmits the audio to the user’s device. Ex.1001, 6:1-4.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 5 (annotated); Ex.1003,¶27
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`As explained below, the concept of a voice browsing system having these
`
`
`
`common components was not new as of the ’314 patent’s priority date.
`
`Ex.1003,¶28.
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`The ’314 patent was filed on June 27, 2016. During prosecution, Applicant
`
`filed claim amendments and terminal disclaimers to overcome rejections for
`
`double patenting and anticipation by Berstis. Ex.1002, 134-140, 191-211, 221-224,
`
`430-453. The limitations “content extractor” and “content descriptor file” were
`
`introduced to the independent claims through examiner’s amendments before the
`
`claims were allowed. Ex.1002, 430-453.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in 2000 would have been
`
`someone knowledgeable and familiar with voice response, information retrieval, or
`
`related technologies that are pertinent to the ’314 patent. That person would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent
`
`training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of
`
`retrieving information in response to voice commands, or equivalent field. Lack of
`
`work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.
`
`Ex.1003,¶¶13-15.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`In an IPR, claims “shall be construed using the same claim construction
`
`standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The
`
`Board construes claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the underlying
`
`controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner submits that for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, all terms of the Challenged Claims should be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.1
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial for IPR and cancel the
`
`Challenged Claims in view of the analysis below.
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that any term in the Challenged Claims meets the
`
`statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, or that the Challenged Claims recite
`
`patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE
`A. Discretionary denial under Fintiv is not appropriate
`
`The six factors considered for § 314 denial strongly favor institution. See
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential). The district court case is at an early stage before the start of claim
`
`construction or fact discovery. Petitioner diligently prepared and filed this petition
`
`contemporaneously with the service of its invalidity contentions at district court.
`
`Ex.1013, 2. The petition is also well within the one-year timeframe allowed by
`
`Congress.
`
`1. No evidence regarding a stay
`
`No motion to stay has been filed, so the Board should not infer the outcome
`
`of such a motion. Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group –
`
`Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (PTAB June 16, 2020)
`
`(informative); see also Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`01359, Paper 15 at 11 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2021) (“It would be improper to speculate,
`
`at this stage, what the Texas court might do regarding a motion to stay…”). Thus,
`
`this factor is neutral.
`
`2. Parallel proceeding trial date
`
`The expected date for a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in this case is
`
`approximately November 2023. As of the filing of this petition, the district court
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`has set jury selection for trial to begin on October 12, 2023, for one of the
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`defendants in the case: Microsoft, Google, Apple or Samsung. Ex.1013, 5. In its
`
`Scheduling Order, the district court noted that, “Each Defendant will have a
`
`separate pretrial conference and jury selection/trial. These dates are for the first
`
`trial.” Ex.1013, 5, n.1. It is unknown when a trial against Petitioner regarding the
`
`’314 patent would begin.
`
`Thus, it would be error to “rely[] too heavily on the scheduled trial date”
`
`because those dates are often subject to change, especially here where a first trial
`
`among multiple defendants is scheduled approximately 17 months away, and it is
`
`unknown when the court will schedule a trial against Petitioner. In Sand, the
`
`“relative close proximity” of a trial date scheduled 5 months before the FWD
`
`deadline “weigh[ed] marginally in favor of not exercising discretion to deny
`
`institution” given the district court’s own recognition of a “continuing degree
`
`of…uncertainty of the court’s schedule.” Sand at 8-10. Here, even if the WDTX
`
`trial commences against Petitioner on October 12, 2023, the FWD in this case
`
`would likely issue contemporaneously (within a range measured in weeks).
`
`Accordingly, the earliest that the trial on the ’314 patent might commence would
`
`be well within the 5 month time period in Sand.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner worked expeditiously to file this petition within two
`
`months after receiving Patent Owner’s preliminary infringement contentions on
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`March 10, 2022, and contemporaneously with Petitioner’s invalidity contentions
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`due on May 5, 2022. See Fintiv at 11-12, Ex.1013, 2.
`
`Thus, this factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`3. Investment in the parallel proceeding
`
`The co-pending litigation is in its early stages, and parties have invested
`
`little thus far.
`
`On claim construction, the parties have not exchanged terms or constructions
`
`and will not complete claim construction briefing until August 18, 2022. Ex.1013,
`
`3. The Markman hearing is not until September 2022. Id. Moreover, Petitioner has
`
`filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. Per the
`
`Standing Order, if the district court has not resolved the motion to transfer prior to
`
`the Markman hearing, the district court will postpone the Markman hearing.
`
`Ex.1014, 6. If the district court grants the transfer motion, then it will vacate the
`
`schedule.
`
`Neither party has taken discovery. Fact discovery does not open until
`
`September 2, 2022, and closes on April 6, 2023. Ex.1013, 3-4. Petitioner is serving
`
`its invalidity contentions contemporaneously with this petition and final invalidity
`
`contentions are not due until November 17, 2022. Id. Expert discovery does not
`
`start until April 6, 2023. Id.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
` Moreover, Petitioner only learned which claims Patent Owner is asserting
`
`
`
`on March 10, 2022, after receiving preliminary infringement contentions. Ex.1013,
`
`2. Petitioner’s prompt filing less than two months later “weigh[s] against
`
`exercising the authority to deny institution.” Fintiv at 11 (“If the evidence shows
`
`that the petitioner filed the petition expeditiously, such as promptly after becoming
`
`aware of the claims being asserted, this fact has weighed against exercising the
`
`authority to deny institution under NHK.”).
`
`Accordingly, the lack of investment in the parallel proceeding favors
`
`institution.
`
`4. Overlapping issues with the parallel proceeding
`
`If the Board institutes trial, Petitioner will cease asserting in the co-pending
`
`litigation the specific grounds asserted in this Petition or on any other ground that
`
`was raised or could have reasonably been raised in this inter partes review. A
`
`broad stipulation not to pursue any ground ensures that this IPR is a true alternative
`
`to the district court proceeding and weighs strongly in favor of not exercising
`
`discretion to deny. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-0109, Paper 12
`
`at 19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020). Therefore, this factor favors institution.
`
`5. Petitioner is a defendant
`
`Petitioner is a defendant in the litigation. That is true of most Petitioners in
`
`IPR proceedings, making this factor neutral. See HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`LLC, IPR2020-01084, Paper 13 at 9 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2021)(having the “same
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`parties as parallel proceeding” makes factor 5 “neutral”).
`
`6. Other circumstances
`
`The grounds presented in this Petition render the Challenged Claims
`
`unpatentable as obvious. The merits of Petitioner’s arguments are strong, and this
`
`factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`Thus, because the Fintiv factors are either neutral or weigh against
`
`discretionary denial, and because Petitioner files this Petition well before the
`
`statutory bar date, institution should not be denied on discretionary factors.
`
`B.
`
`The Fintiv framework should be overturned
`
`Apart from Petitioner’s showing that the Fintiv factors favor institution, the
`
`Fintiv framework should be overturned because it (1) exceeds the Director’s
`
`authority, (2) is arbitrary and capricious, and (3) was adopted without notice-and-
`
`comment rulemaking.
`
`C. Discretionary denial under General Plastic is not appropriate
`
`The ’314 patent is the subject of another ongoing IPR proceeding filed by
`
`Google LLC (“Google”), who like Petitioner Apple, is a defendant in district court
`
`litigation. Google filed IPR2022-00805 on April 4, 2022. Ex.1017. Petitioner was
`
`not involved in preparing and filing the Google IPR petition.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`This Petition presents new grounds that were not part of Google’s IPR and
`
`
`
`were not cited during prosecution of the ’314 patent. See Ex.1017. Moreover, this
`
`is Petitioner’s first challenge of the ’314 patent’s claims.
`
`In cases where multiple petitions are filed against the same patent, the Board
`
`considers the General Plastic factors. General Plastic enumerates non-exclusive
`
`factors the Board will consider in exercising discretion to institute an IPR. The
`
`following discussion explains why the General Plastic factors weigh in favor of
`
`institution.
`
`1. Whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent
`
`This factor weighs against discretionary denial because a different petitioner
`
`is challenging the claims of the ’314 patent. Further, there is no relationship
`
`between Apple and Google that would warrant considering the two parties the
`
`same. Although the Board held in Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) that the first
`
`Generic Plastic factor is not limited to instances where multiple petitions are filed
`
`by the same petitioner, the facts here are distinguishable. First, in Valve, both the
`
`petitioner (Valve) and HTC (who filed the earlier IPR) were co-defendants in the
`
`same district court case and were accused of infringing the patent-at-issue based on
`
`the same product. See Valve, Paper 11, at 9. However, in the present case, the
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`accused products in the complaint against Apple are different from the products
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`accused in the complaint against Google. Exs. 1015-1016. And, in this petition,
`
`there is a different petitioner and different arguments than the prior petitions. See
`
`Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. et al. v. Walletex Microelectronics
`
`Ltd., IPR2018-01538, Paper 11 at 21 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2019).
`
`Further, Petitioner has not coordinated with Google for the purposes of
`
`preparing this Petition. See Twitter, Inc., v. Palo Alto Research Center Inc.
`
`IPR2021-01458, Paper 11 at 33 (PTAB April 6, 2022)(declining to discretionarily
`
`deny the petition under General Plastic and finding that there was no evidence that
`
`Petitioner had coordinated with previous filers); see also, Facebook, Inc. v.
`
`Express Mobile Inc., IPR2021-01457, paper 10 at 11 (PTAB March 18,
`
`2022)(coordination among defendants does not demonstrate coordination among
`
`the parties in preparing IPR petitions).
`
`Lastly, the prior petition is a direct result of Patent Owner’s own litigation
`
`activity. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Iron Oak Techs., LLC, IPR2018-01554, Paper
`
`9 at 31 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019)(The Board, when evaluating the General Plastic
`
`factors, “decline[d] to wield [Patent Owner’s] litigation activities as a shield.”).
`
`Accordingly, no significant relationship exists that warrants treating Apple
`
`and Google as the same Petitioner under Valve. For at least these reasons, this
`
`factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`2. Whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner
`knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should
`have known of it
`
`At the time Google’s IPR was filed, Apple was in the preliminary stages of
`
`analyzing the ’314 patent and had not yet identified the combination of references
`
`proposed in this petition.
`
`While Apple’s petition relies on one reference in common with the Google
`
`IPR for Ground 2 of this petition (i.e., Woods, Ex.1008), Apple’s combination of
`
`references and grounds for invalidity are separate and distinct. See Streck, Inc. v.
`
`Ravgen, Inc., IPR2021-01577, Paper 20 at 20 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022)(even in the
`
`case of overlapping prior art, different theories based on that art “new before” the
`
`Board). Further, any overlap in the prior art used by Apple and Google in their
`
`respective IPRs does not weigh in favor of denial because “any similarities in the
`
`prior art teachings as applied to the challenged claims will provide some basis for
`
`efficiency in timely resolving the issue of this review.” Twitter, Inc. v. Palo Alto
`
`Research Center Inc., IPR2021-01458, Paper 11 at 36 (PTAB April 6, 2022).
`
`Accordingly, this factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`3. Whether at the time of filing of the second petition the
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary
`response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision
`on whether to institute review in the first petition
`
`As of the filing of this petition, Patent Owner has not filed a preliminary
`
`response in the Google IPR. Further, the PTAB has not issued a decision on
`
`whether to institute Google’s IPR. Thus, unlike in General Plastic, Petitioner has
`
`not used the PTAB’s prior decisions or Patent Owner’s arguments as a “roadmap”
`
`that is unfair or risks being an “inefficient use” of IPR processes. See General
`
`Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at
`
`16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2016) (Section II.B.4.i. precedential). Apple has not gained any
`
`unfair tactical advantage. Further, denial of this petition would prejudice Petitioner
`
`should the earlier IPR be dismissed due to settlement. See Toshiba America
`
`Information Systems, Inc. et al. v. Walletex Microelectronics Ltd., IPR2018-01538,
`
`Paper 11 at 22 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2019).
`
`Therefore, this factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`4. The length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner
`learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the
`filing of the second petition
`
`Petitioner files this petition well within the one-year statutory bar allowed by
`
`Congress. Petitioner acted with reasonable diligence to prepare this Petition after
`
`locating the references relied upon herein. Specifically, Petitioner is filing this IPR
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`contemporaneously with the service of its invalidity contentions at the district
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`court. Ex.1013, 2. Accordingly, this factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`5. Whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the
`time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed
`to the same claims of the same patent
`
`As noted in factor 1, Petitioner has not filed multiple petitions against the
`
`’314 patent. To the extent this factor requires an explanation for the time elapsed
`
`since Google’s Petition, as explained in factor 4, Petitioner has been diligent in its
`
`searching and analysis of prior art since being sued for patent infringement.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner did not simply copy the prior-art used by Google—this
`
`Petition relies on different arguments and grounds. Finally, the asserted claims of
`
`the ’314 are lengthy and required additional resources for searching and analysis.
`
`6. The finite resources of the Board and the requirement under
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later
`than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices
`institution of review
`
`This IPR would require only modest resources that are reasonable under the
`
`circumstances because the Board will already be familiar with the ’314 patent and
`
`the patent includes only twenty-six claims. Accordingly, this factor weighs against
`
`discretionary denial.
`
`D. Discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not appropriate
`
`Denial under § 325(d) is not warranted because the challenges presented in
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`this petition are neither cumulative nor redundant to the prosecution of the ’314
`
`IPR2022-00948 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,769,314
`
`patent. The Examiner did not consider any of the prior art references relied on in
`
`this petition. Ex.1002. Moreover, the challenges in this petition are non-cumulative
`
`because the art relied on teach the claim elements the Examiner deemed allowable.
`
`X.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-26.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Grounds
`#1
`#2
`
`Claims
`
`1-26
`5, 11, 18
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103 over Danner
`§ 103 over Danner and Woods
`