`
`
`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 IPR2022-01094
`Patent 8,620,039
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S PRELIMINARY
`
`
`
`RESPONSE REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners contend that Apple cannot be an RPI because it purportedly has no
`
`control over the Petition. Reply at 2, 8. However, the PTAB has repeatedly made
`
`clear that “a non-party may be a real party-in-interest even in the absence of control
`
`or an opportunity to control.” Cisco Sys., v. H.P Enter. Co., IPR2017-01933, Paper
`
`9 at 13 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2018) (emphasis in original).1 Key to the RPI analysis is
`
`whether Apple and Petitioners have a structured, preexisting business relationship
`
`and whether Apple would receive more than a merely generalized benefit if trial is
`
`instituted. AIT, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Petitioners’
`
`own Exhibit Nos. 1024-1028 demonstrate the specially structured nature of the
`
`business relationship with Apple concerning the relevant products.
`
`Petitioners admit that the ASSA ABLOY products identified in the Parallel
`
`Litigation were sent to Apple for compliance or certification purposes. EX1023
`
`(Rog. 1). Petitioners also admit that only 56 out of the purported 34 million
`
`application developers (or 0.00017%) make similar product submissions to Apple.
`
`Reply at 1, 8. Petitioners also admit that relevant Yale and August products were
`
`submitted to Apple to ensure compliance. Id. at 8. Petitioners submit that Apple
`
`requires similar product submissions from “hundreds” of MFi participants. Id.
`
`
`1 The Board’s institution decisions in related IPR2022-01006, -01045, -01089
`does not appear to acknowledge this principle.
`
`1
`
`
`
`“Hundreds” is ambiguous, but even assigning it the largest possible value (999), then
`
`only 0.003% of the purported 34 million developers make similar submissions.
`
`In its prior institution decisions in the related IPRs, the Board apparently
`
`accepted Petitioners’ assertion that they “have a standard business relationship [with
`
`Apple] like that of over 34 million application developers … and hundreds of MFi
`
`Program12 participants.” See e.g., IPR2022-01006, Paper 27 at 17. However, it
`
`appears that the Board did not consider that Petitioners are amongst an
`
`infinitesimally small percentage of developers that have such a close partnership
`
`with Apple that Apple inspects their physical products, including those implicated
`
`by the patented technology at issue here. As in Ventex, Apple and Petitioners have a
`
`“specially structured, preexisting, and well-established business relationship with
`
`one another” with respect to the technology at issue. Ventex, IPR2017-00651, Paper
`
`148 at 10 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019).
`
`
`
`Petitioners speculate that a finding that Apple is an RPI here would have an
`
`unfairly deleterious effect on the purported 34 million app developers. Reply at 2.
`
`But there is no evidence that all app developers share the exact same relationship
`
`with Apple and, as demonstrated above, Petitioners’ relationship with Apple is
`
`relatively unique. The Board can only be expected to consider the specific
`
`relationship between Petitioners and Apple, and not some unidentified 34 million
`
`others.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ effort to distinguish the Apple Agreement from the DevPub
`
`agreement in Bungie also fails. Reply at 5-6. The Apple Agreement requires
`
`Petitioners to warrant that “none of the Licensed Applications…violate or infringe
`
`any patent…or other intellectual property or contractual rights of any other person.”
`
`EX2009 at 77. See also id. at 16 (to the best of developer’s knowledge, the relevant
`
`products “do not and will not” violate or infringe any patents.) Contrary to the
`
`Board’s finding in the prior institution decisions, the warranties are not merely
`
`opinions on whether the rights are clear. See e.g., IPR2022-01006, Paper 27 at 23-
`
`24. Rather, they are stated with certainty, for the purpose of ensuring that the rights
`
`are cleared for use.
`
`Next, Ventex does not require an “exclusivity-plus-indemnity arrangement.”
`
`See Reply at 6. The Apple indemnity provision must be considered along with all
`
`other relevant facts in the “flexible approach” and “expansive formulation”
`
`required under AIT. See AIT at 1351. Under AIT, Apple is clearly an RPI.
`
`Petitioners rely on WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d
`
`1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to support its argument that Apple is not a privy under
`
`Taylor Factor 2. However, in WesternGeco, the Board rejected privity “based on
`
`the ambiguous, undefined nature of the underlying [indemnity] agreements.” Id. at
`
`1321. As discussed in the Preliminary Response, the indemnity clauses in the
`
`Apple Agreement are in no way ambiguous or undefined. Prelim. Resp. at 27-29.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 11, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/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
`Tel: (860) 286-2929
`Fax: (860) 286-0115
`ryan@cantorcolburn.com
`scoyle@cantorcolburn.com
`ngeiger@cantorcolburn.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on this 11th
`
`day of January 11, 2023, 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: January 11, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Andrew C. Ryan/
`Andrew C. Ryan
`Reg. No. 43,070
`
`
`
`5
`
`