`
`
`Filed on behalf of ecobee Technologies ULC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550 B2
`_______________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING
` COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Collateral Estoppel Prevents Relitigating Issues ............................................. 1
`
`III. This IPR Presents Issues Already Litigated and Adjudged by
`the Board .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Estoppel Applies to EcoFactor’s “Thermal Gain”
`Argument ............................................................................................... 3
`
`Estoppel Applies to Whether Ehlers and Wruck Teach a
`Difference Value ................................................................................... 4
`
`Estoppel Applies to EcoFactor’s Arguments Concerning
`the Claimed Using and Calculating Steps ............................................. 5
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Google LLC v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.,
`54 F.4th 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 3
`Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.,
`IPR2018-00481 (P.T.A.B. July 16, 2019) ........................................................ 2-3
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 3
`Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`924 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 2
`SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp.,
`988 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................ 2, 5
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`909 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 1-3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73 ............................................................................................... 1-2, 6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner (“ecobee”) submits this brief on why collateral estoppel applies
`
`against Patent Owner (“EcoFactor”) as to the application of Ehlers and Wruck.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Board previously found that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,194,597 (“’597 patent”; Ex. 1025), which is a continuation of the ’550 patent,
`
`were obvious over the combination of Ehlers and Wruck—a combination at issue
`
`in this IPR. Google LLC and ecobee Technologies ULC v. EcoFactor, Inc.,
`
`IPR2022-00538, Paper 26 (P.T.A.B. August 1, 2023) (“’597 FWD” (Ex. 1026)
`
`and, generally, “’597 IPR”). Independent claims 1 and 9 of the ’597 patent recite
`
`features substantially identical to features in the claims of the ’550 patent. For
`
`instance, the accessing, using, calculating, generating (including with respect to the
`
`“difference value”), and detecting steps in claim 1 of each patent are substantially
`
`identical. Similarly, the accessing, using, calculating, comparing, detecting, and
`
`changing steps in claim 9 of each patent are substantially identical. Both patents
`
`share a common specification. See Ex. 1001; Ex. 1025. Collateral estoppel and
`
`estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 apply because this IPR presents issues identical
`
`to ones decided in the ’597 IPR.
`
`II. Collateral Estoppel Prevents Relitigating Issues
`
`Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) prevents relitigating issues. VirnetX
`
`Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Issue preclusion applies
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`to Board decisions in IPRs. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Am.,
`
`Inc., 924 F.3d 1243, 1250-51 (Fed. Cir. 2019). A party is collaterally estopped
`
`from relitigating an issue if “(1) a prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the
`
`prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior
`
`action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior
`
`action featured full representation of the estopped party.” VirnetX Inc., 909 F.3d at
`
`1377; see SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., 988 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`
`(“essentially” the same issue); Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00481, Paper 29 at 9-10 (P.T.A.B. July 16, 2019). Per the rules, Board
`
`decisions have preclusive effect upon issuance. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.73(a)
`
`(“A judgment, except in the case of a termination, disposes of all issues that were,
`
`or by motion reasonably could have been, raised and decided”) and 42.73(d)
`
`(explaining that “[a] patent owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with
`
`the adverse judgment” of the Board and listing non-limiting examples); see
`
`SynQor, 988 F.3d at 1351 (“Factual determinations made by the expert agency
`
`entrusted by Congress to make those determinations—and to make them finally—
`
`need not be endlessly reexamined.”).
`
`Patent claims need not be identical for collateral estoppel to apply. Rather,
`
`collateral estoppel requires that the issues of patentability that were previously
`
`litigated be identical, and applies as long as “the differences between the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter
`
`the question of invalidity.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333,
`
`1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Google LLC v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.,
`
`54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “[A] party may be bound not simply by the
`
`ultimate conclusion (e.g., unpatentability of a claim), but by any subsidiary factual
`
`determinations that were actually litigated and essential to the judgment.” Mobile
`
`Tech, Inc., IPR2018-00481, Paper 29 at 18. A key factor in determining if “issues”
`
`are identical under collateral estoppel is whether “there [is] a substantial overlap
`
`between the evidence or argument … advanced in the second proceeding and that
`
`advanced in the first.” Id.
`
`III. This IPR Presents Issues Already Litigated and Adjudged by the Board
`
`The ’597 IPR involves the same combination—Ehlers and Wruck—applied
`
`in the same manner against substantially identical claim elements. The identical
`
`issues include: (1) the meaning of Ehler’s use of “thermal gain”; (2) that Ehlers
`
`and Wruck teach or suggest a “difference value”; (3) the application of the prior art
`
`to specific method steps common to both patents. See VirnetX, 909 F.3d at 1377.
`
`EcoFactor is represented by the same counsel in both IPRs. See Ex. 1026, 39.
`
`A. Estoppel Applies to EcoFactor’s “Thermal Gain” Argument
`
`The Board rejected EcoFactor’s attempt to characterize Ehler’s discussion of
`
`“thermal gain” as pertaining to energy absorption rather than the rate change of
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`temperatures inside a structure in response to changes in outside temperatures. Ex.
`
`1026, 16-24, 27-30; see, e.g., Ex. 1025, claim 1; Ex. 1001, claim 1. Indeed, the
`
`Board rejected EcoFactor’s interpretation of Figs. 3D, 3E, and 3G and paragraph
`
`255 in Ehlers, which interpretations are identical in this IPR. Ex. 1026, 19-20; ’550
`
`POR (Paper 12), 10-19. The Board’s ruling on the thermal gain issue in ’597 IPR
`
`was a primary basis for the ruling against EcoFactor. Ex. 1026, 16-24, 27-30. Thus,
`
`estoppel applies to the Board’s rejection of EcoFactor’s “thermal gain” argument.
`
`B.
`
`Estoppel Applies to Whether Ehlers and Wruck Teach a
`Difference Value
`
`In the Ehlers-Wruck combination in the ’597 IPR, Wruck was relied upon to
`
`teach the claimed “difference value.” Ex. 1026, 34-35; ’597 IPR, Petition, Paper 1
`
`(Ex. 1027), 51-52. Petitioner in the ’597 IPR argued that using a difference value
`
`to determine whether an actual setpoint was different from an automated setpoint
`
`would have been obvious (i) in general, due to it being a known manner of
`
`determining whether two values are different (as called for in Ehlers), and (ii) in
`
`view of Wruck’s specific teaching of using such a difference value (Wruck’s
`
`“Delta value”) to compare setpoints. Ex. 1026, 33-36; Ex. 1027, 19-20, 25, 34-35,
`
`50-54; ’597 IPR, POR, Paper 10 (Ex. 1028), 9-10, 28-30. Those arguments are
`
`virtually identical to the “difference value” arguments in the present petition. See
`
`’550 Petition (Paper 1), 19-21, 37-42.
`
`Thus, EcoFactor had a full and fair opportunity to dispute that the difference
`4
`
`
`
`
`value is taught or suggested by Wruck, as combined with Ehlers. The Board
`
`actually adjudged (as an essential consideration of the patentability of independent
`
`claim 1) that the combination taught the claimed step of “generating … a
`
`difference value based on comparing … an actual setpoint[] at the first time for the
`
`thermostatic controller to the first automated setpoint for the thermostatic
`
`controller; [and] detecting a manual change to the first automated setpoint … based
`
`on the difference value.” Ex. 1025, claim 1; see Ex. 1001, claim 1. Specifically, the
`
`Board concluded in the ’597 IPR “that the combination of Ehlers and Wruck
`
`teaches or suggests this element of claim 1.” Ex. 1026, 36.
`
`Importantly, in the ’597 IPR, EcoFactor did not dispute that Wruck’s Delta
`
`value met the requirements of the claimed difference value (or that Wruck’s
`
`teaching on this point could be combine with Ehlers). See Ex. 1028, 28-30. Thus,
`
`in the ’597 IPR, the Board’s reliance on Wruck for this issue cannot be appealed
`
`by EcoFactor. Consequently, estoppel attaches. SynQor, 988 F.3d at 1351 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (explaining that estoppel attaches when a party had a fair opportunity to
`
`rebut an issue but “declined” to do so); see also id. at 1355 (explaining that new
`
`arguments or evidence, presented later, do not preclude estoppel).
`
`C. Estoppel Applies to EcoFactor’s Arguments Concerning the
`Claimed Using and Calculating Steps
`
`In the present IPR, EcoFactor challenges whether Ehlers describes or
`
`suggests the using and calculating steps of the independent claims. ’550 POR, 21-
`5
`
`
`
`
`34. Independent claims 1 and 9 of the ’597 patent recite using and calculating steps
`
`virtually identical to those of the ’550 patent. While the Board’s basis for finding
`
`that these steps are taught and/or suggested by Ehlers rests mainly on rejecting the
`
`“thermal gain” argument, the Board also rejected other arguments by EcoFactor
`
`that mimic arguments made in this IPR. See Ex. 1026, 27-32. The Board ruled that
`
`the argument concerning whether the prediction in Ehlers relates to when the
`
`HVAC system is on or off is irrelevant to the claim requirements. Ex. 1026, 27-28;
`
`see ’550 POR, 21-34. The Board also rejected EcoFactor’s argument that the
`
`calculation of a setpoint does not involve a prediction. Ex. 1026, 28; see ’550 POR,
`
`26. The Board rejected EcoFactor’s argument that Ehlers does not teach or suggest
`
`a first automated setpoint at a first time. Ex. 1026, 31-32; see ’550 POR, 33-34.
`
`Thus, estoppel also attaches to the identical issues presented in this IPR, given the
`
`full and fair adjudication of such issues.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons explained above, collateral estoppel and estoppel under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.73 prevent EcoFactor from relitigating (1) the meaning of Ehler’s use
`
`of “thermal gain”; (2) that Ehlers and Wruck teach or suggest a “difference value”;
`
`(3) the application of Ehlers to the using and calculating steps. Accordingly, the
`
`Board should find claims 1-16 of the ’550 patent unpatentable.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
` Dated: August 29, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Justin J. Oliver/
`Justin J. Oliver
`VENABLE LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Telephone: 202-721-5423
`Facsimile: 202-344-8300
`Email: JOliver@Venable.com
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Supplemental Brief Regarding Collateral Estoppel and accompanying exhibits
`
`were served on this date, via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record
`
`for the Patent Owner:
`
`pwang@raklaw.com
`jlink@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`kdavis@raklaw.com
`rak_ecofactor@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`DATED: August 29, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Justin J. Oliver/
`Justin J. Oliver
`VENABLE LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Telephone: 202-721-5423
`Facsimile: 202-344-8300
`Email: JOliver@Venable.com
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`