`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY INC., ASSA ABLOY RESIDENTIAL
`GROUP, INC., AUGUST HOME, INC., HID GLOBAL CORPORATION,
`ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705
`
`JOINT REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1) and the Board’s email of December 12,
`
`2022, the parties jointly submit this request for rehearing of the decision granting
`
`institution in this matter (“the Decision”) (Paper 23).
`
`This request for rehearing is respectfully submitted to alert the Board of an
`
`error in the Decision relating to the “Mathiassen” reference relied on in the present
`
`Petition. In particular, the “Mathiassen” reference relied on as a secondary
`
`reference in the present Petition is WO 02/28067 to Camilla Mathiassen
`
`(“Mathiassen-067”). Ex. 1004. This reference was correctly identified on page 10
`
`of the Decision, which sets forth the grounds in the Petition. However, within its
`
`discussion of Petitioner’s Ground 1, the Board included a discussion of a different
`
`Mathiassen reference that is included in Apple’s petition in related IPR2022-00602
`
`(“the ’602 Apple petition”). See Decision at 50-51. That reference is US Pub
`
`2004/0123113 to Svein Mathiassen et al. (“Mathiassen-113”). Moreover, on page
`
`15, the Decision states that “Mathiassen is the only reference common to both the
`
`’602 Apple petition and the Petition in the case now before us.” This statement is
`
`incorrect because the Mathiassen references are different, and neither is common
`
`to both the ‘602 Apple petition and the present Petition.
`
`It is noted that both Mathiassen-067 and Mathiassen-113 coincidentally
`
`share the same exhibit number (Ex. 1004) in their respective proceedings. As
`
`1
`
`
`
`suggested in the Board’s email of December 12, 2022, this may have contributed to
`
`the apparent confusion.
`
`In response to the parties jointly providing notice of this issue to the Board,
`
`the Board’s email of December 12, 2022 indicated as follows: “The preferred
`
`procedure to allow the Board to correct this error is for Patent Owner, or the parties
`
`jointly, to request rehearing of the 01006 decision.” This is consistent with the
`
`requirement that institution be based solely on the grounds and prior art raised in
`
`the petition (see e.g., Sirona Dental Sys. GMBH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892
`
`F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Accordingly, the parties request that the Board
`
`re-issue a decision that “fully and fairly consider[s]” the correct Mathiassen
`
`reference. See Board’s email of December 12, 2022.
`
`Respectfully submitted this 15th day of December 2022,
`
`/Andrew C. Ryan/
`Andrew C. Ryan (Reg. No. 43,070)
`Steven M. Coyle (pro hac vice)
`Nicholas A. Geiger (pro hac vice)
`CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
`Hartford, CT 06103
`aryan@cantorcolburn.com
`scoyle@cantorcolburn.com
`ngeiger@cantorcolburn.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`/ Dion Bregman /
`Dion Bregman
`Andrew Devkar
`James J. Kritsas
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`HID-IPRs@morganlewis.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on this 15th
`
`day of December, 2022, service of the foregoing document was made on the
`
`counsel of record for the Petitioner by filing this document through the PTAB’s
`
`P-TACTS platform as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail to the following
`
`address:
`
`Dion Bregman
`Andrew Devkar
`James J. Kritsas
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`HID-IPRs@morganlewis.com
`
`Dated: December 15, 2022
`
`By: /Andrew C. Ryan/
`Andrew C. Ryan
`
`3
`
`
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
