`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
` CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB;
`OXYSALES, UAB; AND CORETECH LT, UAB,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-01109
`
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY1
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Authorized via e-mail on September 28, 2022. EX. 3001.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01109 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. GENERAL PLASTIC FACTORs 2 AND 6 ......................................................... 1
`
`A. GUIDANCE IN TPG RELATED TO RANKING OF PETITIONS ............... 2
`
`III. FINTIV FACTORS ........................................................................................... 3
`
`A. FINTIV FACTOR 1 .......................................................................................... 5
`
`B. THE JURY VERDICT IN THE TESO LITIGATION .................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2022-01109 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`On June 14, Petitioners filed IPR2022-01109 against Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`(“the ‘319 Patent”) and a motion to join IPR2022-00135. Papers 1 and 7. As of
`
`June 14, Petitioners had already filed IPR2020-01266 and IPR2022-00861 against
`
`the ‘319 Patent. Petitioners filing this IPR represents their third IPR challenge
`
`against the ‘319 Patent. On October 14, Petitioners filed IPR2023-00038 which
`
`represents their fourth IPR challenge against the ‘319 Patent.
`
`As explained in Patent Owner’s Opposition (Paper 13), the Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 16)2, and this Sur-Reply, institution and joinder
`
`should be denied in this IPR. As further discussed herein, the Board should
`
`exercise its discretion based on the General Plastic and/or Fintiv factors.
`
`II. GENERAL PLASTIC FACTORS 2 AND 6
`
`Patent Owner addressed the “other concerns” under General Plastic Factor 2
`
`in its preliminary response. Paper 16 at 7-8; see also Paper 13 at 7-9. Additionally,
`
`Patent Owner addressed efficiency and fairness concerns under General Plastic
`
`Factor 6 in its preliminary response. Paper 16 at 9-12; see also id. at 12-17.
`
`
`2 Patent Owner addressed Director Vidal’s August 23 Decision vacating/remanding
`
`the institution decision in the -861 IPR in its preliminary response. E.g., Paper 16
`
`at 3-6 and 10-11.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01109 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`Moreover, on October 19, the Board granted institution in the -861 IPR and
`
`joinder to IPR2021-01492. Petitioners now assume the lead role in challenging the
`
`‘319 Patent in the -1492 IPR. Many of Petitioners’ arguments in support of joinder
`
`in this IPR are therefore moot. E.g., Paper 14 at 2-4. The Board previously noted
`
`that the claims challenged in this IPR significantly overlap with the claims
`
`challenged in the -861 IPR (and the -1492 IPR). See -861 IPR, Paper 17 at 9.
`
`Petitioners fail to explain why the Board should expend its resources to institute
`
`multiple IPRs by the same petitioners against the same patent.
`
`A. GUIDANCE IN TPG RELATED TO RANKING OF PETITIONS
`
`Petitioners unilaterally created their own exception to the guidance in the
`
`TPG for joinder petitions. Petitioners failed to rank the concurrently-pending
`
`petitions in the -861 IPR, the -1109 IPR, and the -038 IPR. Excusing Petitioners’
`
`failure to rank the concurrently-pending petitions does not serve the interests of
`
`efficiency or fairness.
`
`Petitioners’ Reply (Paper 17) was filed on October 11, 2022. At that time,
`
`the -861 IPR was on remand and therefore pending. Petitioners did not rank the
`
`petitions in the -861 IPR and this IPR.
`
`The -038 IPR was filed on October 14, 2022. At that time, the -861 IPR and
`
`this IPR were still pending. Petitioners still did not rank the petitions in the -861
`
`IPR, this IPR, and the -038 IPR. See -038 IPR, Paper 13.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01109 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`Instead of ranking the concurrently-pending petitions, Petitioners attempt to
`
`distinguish the guidance in the TPG. Paper 17 at 3-4. Petitioners’ arguments fail
`
`for at least three reasons.
`
`First, the petitions in the -861 IPR, the -1109 IPR, and the -038 IPR were
`
`filed on April 18, June 14, and October 14 of 2022, respectively. Given the
`
`concurrent pendency, Patent Owner respectfully submits that these petitions were
`
`filed at about the same time and should have been ranked.
`
`Second, the -1109 IPR places a substantial and unnecessary burden on the
`
`Board and Patent Owner, at least because Petitioners should not be given multiple
`
`bites at the invalidity apple. See Paper 13 at 1-2 and 7-14; Paper 16 at 9-17. The
`
`Board continues to expend resources to evaluate institution and joinder in multiple
`
`IPRs, including on remand. The Board is already evaluating the primary reference,
`
`Plamondon, in the -135 IPR. Patent Owner continues to expend resources
`
`defending the ‘319 Patent against the same petitioners, including, at minimum,
`
`briefing oppositions and preliminary responses.
`
`Third, the -1109 IPR raises efficiency and fairness concerns, as discussed
`
`above. Also, as discussed under General Plastic Factor 2, Petitioners missed their
`
`opportunity to challenge the ‘319 Patent based on Plamondon. Paper 16 at 7-8; see
`
`also Paper 13 at 7-9.
`
`III. FINTIV FACTORS
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners mischaracterize Director Vidal’s Memorandum. Paper 17 at 4.
`
`IPR2022-01109 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Petitioners argue that, because the petitioner in the -135 IPR satisfied the burden
`
`for institution, “on this basis alone,” the Board should not discretionarily deny
`
`institution. Id. However, Director Vidal clearly stated that “[w]here the information
`
`presented at the institution stage is merely sufficient to meet the statutory
`
`institution threshold, the PTAB has the authority, where warranted, to exercise
`
`discretion to deny institution in view of the other Fintiv factors.” Vidal, “Interim
`
`Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel
`
`District Court Litigation”, June 21, 2022 (“Memorandum”) at 4.
`
`
`
`In the -135 IPR, Patent Owner argued for discretionary denial based on the
`
`NetNut Litigation. See -135 IPR, Papers 7 and 9. The Board stated that “[i]n light
`
`of the settlement with NetNut and dismissal of the NetNut Litigation, Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under Fintiv based on the trial in that
`
`case are moot, and we do not consider them further.” See -135 IPR, Paper 12 at 11.
`
`
`
`Further, in the -135 IPR, the Board considered the parties arguments in view
`
`of the General Plastic factors and the Advanced Bionics factors. See -135 IPR,
`
`Paper 12 at 12-17. No where did the Board state that the -135 IPR was instituted
`
`based on evidence that satisfied the “compelling evidence test” identified by
`
`Director Vidal. See generally -135 IPR, Paper 12; see also Memorandum at 5, n. 4.
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner addressed the merits of the petition in detail in its
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`preliminary response in this IPR. E.g., Paper 16 at 17 and 24-69.
`
`IPR2022-01109 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`A. FINTIV FACTOR 1
`
`The stay in the Teso Litigation was lifted on September 21, 2022 (Dkt. 601).
`
`Thus, this factor is no longer neutral, and instead, favors denial. Paper 16 at 13.
`
`B. THE JURY VERDICT IN THE TESO LITIGATION
`
`Petitioners mischaracterize Patent Owner’s arguments and Personal Audio.
`
`Paper 17 at 5 (citing Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., 946 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020)). Petitioners seem to emphasize that, despite the jury verdict, the Teso
`
`Litigation “remains unresolved” because Judge Gilstrap has not yet entered a final
`
`judgment. E.g., Paper 7 at 8-10. Patent Owner maintains that it is not aware of any
`
`cases in which Judge Gilstrap has reversed a jury verdict in his final judgment
`
`under the present circumstances. See Paper 16 at 13. The circumstances in
`
`Personal Audio are different at least because there was an intervening, final
`
`decision from the Board, affirmed by the Fed. Circuit, finding the asserted claims
`
`unpatentable. Personal Audio at 1350. In that case, the parties agreed to stay the
`
`district court case pending an appeal of the Board’s final decision. Id. The Fed.
`
`Circuit affirmed the Board and following the Supreme Court’s denial of a writ
`
`petition, the parties submitted a joint status report in which the patent owner agreed
`
`to judgment against it. Id. In contrast, here, there is no district court stay, no final
`
`written decision, and no appeal regarding the ‘319 Patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01109 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas M. Dunham
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Reg. No. 39,965
`
`Cherian LLP
`1901 L Street NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 838-1567
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PATENT OWNER,
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01109 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies that
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY complies with the 5-page-
`
`limit authorized by the Board, excluding the parts of this paper exempted by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1). This paper also complies with the format requirements of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas M. Dunham
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Reg. No. 39,965
`
`Cherian LLP
`1901 L Street NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 838-1567
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PATENT OWNER,
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01109 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies the
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY and accompanying exhibits
`
`thereto, were served on the undersigned date via email, as authorized by
`
`Petitioners, at the following email addresses:
`
`jscott@ccrglaw.com
`
`jheuton@ccrglaw.com
`
`ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas M. Dunham
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Reg. No. 39,965
`
`Cherian LLP
`1901 L Street NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 838-1567
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PATENT OWNER,
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`8
`
`