`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01137
`Patent 8,581,706
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. ALL FINTIV FACTORS WEIGH AGAINST INSTITUTION ........................ 1
`Factor 1: The district court has not granted a stay, nor is there any
`A.
`evidence that a stay will be granted. .................................................... 3
`Factor 2: The district court trial will occur before the deadline for a
`final decision in this proceeding. ......................................................... 5
`Factor 3: By the time an institution decision is reached, the parties and
`the court will have completed claim construction briefing and
`discovery will be well underway. ........................................................ 6
`Factor 4: There is substantial overlap between this IPR and the district
`court proceedings. ................................................................................ 8
`Factor 5: Petitioner is a defendant in the district court litigation. ........ 9
`E.
`Factor 6: The petition is without merit and unlikely to succeed. ......... 9
`F.
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 10
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Notice of IPR Petitions, Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA, Dkt. No. 37 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 24, 2022)
`
`Amended Scheduling Order, Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA, Dkt. No. 61 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11,
`2022)
`
`Law360 Article: West Texas Judge Says He Can Move Faster
`Than PTAB
`
`Text Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending IPR, Solas OLED
`Ltd. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00515-ADA (W.D. Tex.
`June 23, 2020)
`
`Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending IPR, Multimedia Content
`Management LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C., Case No. 6:18-cv-
`00207-ADA, Dkt. No. 73 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019)
`
`Standing Order Governing Proceedings in Patent Cases, Judge
`Alan D. Albright
`
`Claim Construction Order, Solas OLED Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case
`No. 6:19-cv-00537-ADA, Dkt. No. 61 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2020)
`
`Plaintiff Aire Technology Ltd.’s Preliminary Disclosure of
`Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions to Apple Inc. in
`Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions in
`Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Aire Technology Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`preliminary response to Petitioner Apple Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706 (“the ’706 patent”).
`
`The Board should exercise its discretion to deny the petition in light of a
`
`parallel district court case involving the same patent, the same claims, the same prior
`
`art, and the same parties. By the time the Board reaches an institution decision in
`
`this proceeding, the parties and the district court will have already invested
`
`significant time and resources in the case—claim construction briefing will be
`
`completed and discovery will be underway. The district court trial is also set to take
`
`place months before the deadline for a final written decision. Moreover, because the
`
`Fintiv factors so strongly favor a discretionary denial, the Board need not consider
`
`the merits. Thus, all six Fintiv factors strongly favor a discretionary denial.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should deny institution.
`
`II. ALL FINTIV FACTORS WEIGH AGAINST INSTITUTION
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) gives the Board discretion to deny institution of the
`
`requested inter partes review due to the advanced state of parallel district court
`
`litigation regarding the same issues. See NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential, designated May 7,
`
`2019) (“NHK Spring”). The Board has set forth six factors for determining whether
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`discretionary denial due to such parallel litigation is appropriate (the “Fintiv
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`factors”):
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be
`granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision;
`
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties;
`
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`
`whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are
`the same party; and
`
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion,
`including the merits.
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential, designated May 5, 2020) (“Fintiv I”); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 7–8 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (decision denying
`
`institution of inter partes review) (“Fintiv II”). “These factors relate to whether
`
`efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny
`
`institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Fintiv I at 6. In
`
`evaluating the factors, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and
`
`integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`As set forth below, all six Fintiv factors weigh against institution. The district
`
`court trial will precede any final written decision from the Board. To avoid
`
`duplication of efforts, wasting resources, and potentially inconsistent decisions, the
`
`Board should deny institution.
`
`A.
`
`Factor 1: The district court has not granted a stay, nor is there any
`evidence that a stay will be granted.
`
`There is presently one active district court case involving the ’706 patent
`
`pending in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright: Aire Technology
`
`Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01101. The district court is aware of Petitioner’s
`
`pending IPR petition,1 but has not stayed the case pending IPR. Nor is there any
`
`evidence that the case will be stayed.
`
`To the contrary, the district court has entered a scheduling order and the case
`
`is set for trial on November 6, 2023. See Ex. 2002 (Scheduling Order) at 3. Petitioner
`
`has not filed a motion to stay, likely because Judge Albright does not favor stays
`
`pending IPR proceedings. See Ex. 2003 (Law360 Article: West Texas Judge Says
`
`He Can Move Faster Than PTAB) (Judge Albright: “It’s my job to give people the
`
`
`1 Patent Owner filed a Notice of IPR Petition in the district court, which states that
`
`defendant/Petitioner filed an IPR petition regarding claims of the ’706 patent. Ex.
`
`2001 at 1-2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`opportunity to have their cases tried in a federal court . . . and I probably can get a
`
`patent trial resolved more quickly than the PTAB can.”). Indeed, Petitioner does not
`
`indicate in its Petition that it intends to seek a stay, and only admits that “[n]o motion
`
`to stay has been filed.” Petition at 15. See Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Evolved
`
`Wireless LLC, IPR2021-00950, Paper 10 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2021)
`
`(“Evolved”) (finding this factor weighed in favor of denial and denying institution
`
`where patent owner showed a stay was unlikely based on the advanced stage of the
`
`case and the court’s past decisions denying stays).
`
`Regardless, by the deadline for an institution decision (January 6, 2023),
`
`discovery will be well underway. Claim construction briefing has been completed,
`
`although the Markman hearing has been postponed to May 16, 2023. See Ex. 2002
`
`at 2. Thus, even if Petitioner ultimately files a motion to stay, it is highly unlikely
`
`that Judge Albright would grant a stay at that late juncture in the case. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`2004 (Order denying motion to stay pending IPR where plaintiff had served its
`
`preliminary infringement contentions and where claim construction was scheduled
`
`to begin before the IPR institution deadline); Ex. 2005 at 5 (Order denying stay
`
`pending IPR even though discovery had not yet begun, as the district court had
`
`already “invested significant resources and time in construing all the contested claim
`
`terms”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`As explained by the Board, a stay of the district court litigation pending
`
`resolution of the PTAB proceedings “allays concerns about inefficiency and
`
`duplication of efforts.” Fintiv I at 6; Fintiv II at 12. But here, the district court has
`
`not stayed the pending litigation, nor is there any evidence that a stay will be granted.
`
`Allowing this IPR to proceed simultaneously with the district court litigation would
`
`be wasteful and inefficient. This factor weighs against institution.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 2: The district court trial will occur before the deadline for
`a final decision in this proceeding.
`
`The statutory deadline for a final written decision in this proceeding is January
`
`6, 2024, which can be extended to July 6, 2024 for good cause or in the case of
`
`joinder. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. Meanwhile, the pending case is set for trial on
`
`November 6, 2023. Thus, trial in the district court litigation will occur months before
`
`the deadline for a final written decision, which weighs against institution See Fintiv
`
`I at 9 (“If the court’s trial date is earlier than the projected statutory deadline, the
`
`Board generally has weighed this fact in favor of exercising authority to deny
`
`institution under NHK.”); Fintiv II at 13 (finding this factor weighed in favor of
`
`discretionary denial and denying institution where the district court trial was
`
`scheduled to occur two months before the deadline for the Board to reach a final
`
`written decision).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that this factor weighs against a discretionary denial because
`
`the district court’s originally set trial date (at the time the Petition was filed) of July
`
`20, 2023 was “uncertain.” Petition at 15. Judge Albright’s standing order governing
`
`proceedings in patent cases expressly states that “[a]fter the trial date is set, the Court
`
`will not move the trial date except in extreme situations.” Ex. 2006 at 9 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Because the district court trial will occur two months before the deadline for
`
`a final written decision in this matter, this factor weighs in favor of a discretionary
`
`denial. Fintiv II at 13.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 3: By the time an institution decision is reached, the parties
`and the court will have completed claim construction briefing and
`discovery will be well underway.
`
`This factor relates to the “amount and type of work already completed in the
`
`parallel litigation by the court and the parties at the time of the institution decision.”
`
`Fintiv I at 9 (emphasis added). For example, “if, at the time of the institution
`
`decision, the district court has issued substantive orders related to the patent at issue
`
`in the petition,” this factor favors denial. Id. at 9–10. Claim construction orders
`
`entered by the district court likewise “indicate that the court and parties have
`
`invested sufficient time in the parallel proceeding to favor denial.” Id. at 10.
`
`Here, the district court has entered a scheduling order that includes all the
`
`deadlines leading up to trial. The parties have already exchanged preliminary
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`infringement and invalidity contentions—including Apple’s 11 invalidity contention
`
`claim charts totaling nearly 844 pages for the ’706 patent alone. Further, by the
`
`January 6, 2023 institution decision deadline, discovery will be underway. More
`
`importantly, claim construction briefing has been completed. Ex. 1020 at 4. The
`
`Markman hearing, originally set for July 18, 2022, id., was moved to May 16, 2023.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 2. Judge Albright typically provides preliminary claim constructions at
`
`the hearing, then enters a final claim construction order within just a couple weeks
`
`after the hearing. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 2 (August 30, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`entering constructions provided at Markman hearing held on August 14, 2020).
`
`Thus, the parties and the court will have invested significant time and resources in
`
`the litigation by the time the Board reaches an institution decision in this matter. This
`
`favors discretionary denial. Fintiv I at 10; Fintiv II at 13–14 (finding that “the level
`
`of investment and effort already expended on claim construction and invalidity
`
`contentions” favored denial where, as here, the parties had exchanged final
`
`contentions, a Markman hearing was held, the court had entered a claim construction
`
`order).
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that the investment in the district court case “has been
`
`minimal” (Petition at 16) is without merit. Those arguments are based on the filing
`
`date of its petition, rather than the date of institution, and should thus be rejected.
`
`See Fintiv I at 9.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Factor 4: There is substantial overlap between this IPR and the
`district court proceedings.
`
`This factor looks at “whether all or some of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition are also at issue in district court,” and whether the “petition includes the
`
`same or substantially the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence” as the
`
`parallel district court case. Fintiv I at 12–13.
`
`Here, Petitioner has challenged many of the claims of the ’706 patent. Patent
`
`Owner’s infringement contentions in the district court identify claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 12,
`
`16, 18, and 20 as the asserted claim for the district court case, and the petition
`
`challenges those same claims. Ex. 2008 at 1.
`
`Further, Petitioner’s invalidity contentions in the district court case identify
`
`many of the same references asserted in the Petition as prior art that anticipates
`
`and/or renders obvious the asserted claims. For example, the invalidity contentions
`
`identify the Guthery, Nozawa and RFID Handbook references. Ex. 2009 at 49. The
`
`only reference asserted in the Petition but not identified in the invalidity contentions
`
`is the secondary reference SmartCard Handbook. Thus, there is substantial overlap
`
`with respect to Petitioner’s invalidity arguments and evidence. That the district court
`
`case involves additional prior art references not asserted in this IPR is “not relevant
`
`to the question of the degree of overlap for this factor.” Fintiv II at 15.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`In sum, this IPR and the district court case involve the same claims—which
`
`will be construed under the same Phillips standard—and much of the same prior art
`
`(and, as discussed below, the same parties), which raises substantial “concerns of
`
`inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv I at 12. This factor
`
`thus weighs in favor of a discretionary denial. See Fintiv II at 15; NHK Spring at 19–
`
`20; see also, Next Caller, IPR2019-00961, Paper 10 at 14 (denying institution where
`
`the district court case involved only a subset of the challenged claims).
`
`E.
`
`Factor 5: Petitioner is a defendant in the district court litigation.
`
`There is no dispute that Petitioner is the defendant in the district court
`
`litigation. “Because the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are
`
`the same party, this factor weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” Fintiv II at 15.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the Board should simply ignore this factor because
`
`“most Petitioners in IPR proceedings” are also defendants in district court litigation.
`
`Petition at 17. This argument is without support and contrary to precedent, and
`
`should thus be rejected. Fintiv requires due consideration of this factor, regardless
`
`of how common it is for the Petitioner to also be a defendant in the litigation.
`
`F.
`
`Factor 6: The petition is without merit and unlikely to succeed.
`
`The Board may consider other circumstances in the exercise of its discretion,
`
`including the merits of the case. Fintiv I at 14. However, “a full analysis of the merits
`
`is not necessary to evaluate this factor.” Fintiv II at 17. Although Patent Owner chose
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`to reserve its arguments on the merits at this stage, when considered together with
`
`the five other Fintiv factors discussed above, this factor still favors discretionary
`
`denial.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The Petition should be denied because Petitioner has not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of invalidity under any ground or challenged claim. As set
`
`forth above, all six Fintiv factors strongly favor discretionary denial, and the petition
`
`should be denied for this reason alone.
`
`
`
`Date: October 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett Cooper
`Brett Cooper, Reg. No. 55,085
`BC Law Group, P.C.
`200 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: 516-359-9668
`bcooper@bc-lawgroup.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner,
`Ai Technology, Ltd.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION REGARDING WORD COUNT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d), Patent Owner hereby certifies, in accordance
`
`with and reliance on the word count provided by the word-processing system used
`
`to prepare this PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE, that the
`
`words in this paper is 2,203. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, this word count is in
`
`compliance with the word limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1) excluding the
`
`portions exempted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett Cooper
`
`Brett Cooper, Reg. No. 55,085
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on
`
`October 6, 2022 by filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`End to End system, as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the
`
`following attorneys of record for the Petitioner:
`
`Scott T. Jarratt (Reg No. 70,297)
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Andrew S. Ehmke (Reg No. 50,271)
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Calmann J. Clements (Reg No. 66,910)
`calmann.clements.ipr@haynesboone.com
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Phone: (972) 739-8663
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`
`/s/ Brett Cooper
`Brett Cooper, Reg. No. 55,085
`BC Law Group, P.C.
`200 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: 516-359-9668
`bcooper@bc-lawgroup.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`