`
`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 SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`Table of Contents
`Factor 1: It is undisputed that a stay is unlikely to be granted. ...................... 1
`Factor 2: The district court trial will occur before the deadline for a final
`decision in this proceeding. ............................................................................ 1
`Factor 3: There has been significant investment in the litigation. ................. 3
`Factor 4: Duplicative issues and inefficiencies remain. ................................. 4
`Factor 5: Petitioner is a defendant in the district court litigation. .................. 5
`Factor 6: The petition is without merit and unlikely to succeed. ................... 5
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`The district court case concerns the same parties, patent, claims, and invalidity
`
`references. On balance, the Fintiv factors weigh against institution.
`
`A.
`
`Factor 1: It is undisputed that a stay is unlikely to be granted.
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that the district court is unlikely to grant a stay in
`
`the event the Petition is instituted. Petitioner does not present any argument or
`
`evidence that the district court is likely to grant a stay, and instead argues that this
`
`factor is neutral without evidence specific to the case. To the contrary, Patent Owner
`
`provides such evidence, including of the stage of the litigation, to reasonably
`
`conclude that a stay is unlikely. See Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Evolved Wireless
`
`LLC, IPR2021-00950, Paper 10 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2021) (“Evolved”).
`
`Moreover, Petitioner has not moved for a stay and has not indicated that it intends
`
`to so move. Factor 1 weighs against institution.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 2: The district court trial will occur before the deadline for
`a final decision in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that the district court case is scheduled for trial on
`
`November 6, 2023, well before the January 6, 2024 final written decision deadline.
`
`Instead, Petitioner relies upon the PTO Director’s June 21, 2022 Memo and the June
`
`30, 2022 time-to-trial statistics to assert that the trial date “for purposes of the
`
`Board’s Fintiv analysis” is late February 2024. In doing so, Petitioner misconstrues
`
`the Memo, which does not dictate that the trial date “for purposes of the Board’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-Reply
`
`
`Fintiv analysis” should be based on recent time-to-trial statistics, but rather cautions
`
`that the “court’s scheduled trial date … is not by itself a good indicator of whether
`
`the district court trial will occur before the statutory deadline.” Memo at 8 (emphasis
`
`added). Judge Albright has set a trial date and “will not move the trial date except in
`
`extreme situations.” Ex. 2006 at 9 (emphasis added). Patent Owner relied on more
`
`than just the scheduled trial date to indicate that the trial will precede the final written
`
`decision deadline. Moreover, even though the June 30, 2022 statistics show a 28-
`
`month time-to-trial, the relevant preceding statistics, starting with the September 30,
`
`2021 statistics (operative when the district court case was filed), are indicative of a
`
`trial date well before or simultaneous with the final written decision deadline. See
`
`Ex. 2010, at 5 (September 30, 2021 statistics showing 23.9 months); Ex. 2011, at 5
`
`(December 31, 2021 statistics showing 25.5 months); Ex. 2012, at 5 (March 31, 2021
`
`statistics showing 27.2 months). Petitioner’s approach is additionally incongruous
`
`with the Memo, which dictates the PTAB should also consider additional factors
`
`“such as the number of cases before the judge in the parallel litigation and the speed
`
`and availability of other case dispositions.” Memo at 9.Petitioner, in addition to
`
`ignoring presented evidence, does not cite to anything other than the one statistic.
`
`Finally, Petitioner argues that the gap between trial date and final written
`
`decision deadline is so short that discretionary denial is not warranted. Yet the Board
`
`has exercised its discretion to deny institution under nearly identical circumstances.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-Reply
`
`
`See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 7–8, at 13 (PTAB
`
`May 13, 2020) (“Fintiv II”); Evolved at 13; Immersion Systems LLC v. Midas Green
`
`Techs., LLC, IPR2021-01176, Paper 16 at 12–13 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2022) (“Midas”).
`
`Petitioner’s cited cases are inapposite. They were issued during the first half of 2021
`
`while the COVID pandemic was still creating significant uncertainty that has now
`
`passed. See Ex. 2002 at 3. Factor 2 weighs against institution.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 3: There has been significant investment in the litigation.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the Board should simply ignore both the parties’ and the
`
`district court’s significant investment in the district court litigation because some of
`
`the work done in that case does not directly relate to invalidity issues. This is
`
`contrary to the Board’s decisions finding that “substantive orders related to the
`
`patent at issue,” including claim construction orders entered by the district court,
`
`favor discretionary denial. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9–
`
`10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential, designated May 5, 2020) (“Fintiv I”). In
`
`Midas, for example, the Board found that, although much was left to occur in the
`
`case, the expended effort in early discovery and claim construction was “not
`
`insubstantial” and denied institution. Midas at 13–14. The same reasoning applies
`
`here. Claim construction briefing was completed three months ago, discovery is
`
`open and ongoing, and the parties have exchanged infringement and invalidity
`
`contentions. “[T]he level of investment and effort already expended on claim
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-Reply
`
`
`construction and invalidity contentions” favors denial. Fintiv II at 13–14. Factor 3
`
`weighs against institution.
`
`D.
`
`Factor 4: Duplicative issues and inefficiencies remain.
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that the district court case involves the same patent,
`
`claims, and invalidity references. To erase any doubt as to the complete overlap
`
`regarding invalidity arguments and evidence, Petitioner’s invalidity contentions
`
`incorporate this IPR by reference. This proceeding is entirely duplicative.
`
`Petitioner “stipulates that it will not pursue … the prior art obviousness
`
`combinations on which trial is instituted for the claims on which trial is instituted.”
`
`Reply at 4. This narrow stipulation is insufficient, only concerning the obviousness
`
`combinations directed to particular claims for which trial is instituted. Petitioner
`
`would still be free to raise anticipation arguments or other combinations based on
`
`the same references, or even the same combinations directed to different claims.
`
`This limited stipulation is not “nearly identical” to the stipulation in Sand. As
`
`explained in Sand, Petitioner could have stipulated that it “would not pursue any
`
`ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in an IPR, i.e., any ground
`
`that could be raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patents or printed
`
`publications.” Sand Revolution II, LLC, Continental Intermodal Grp. – Trucking
`
`LLC, IPR2019-013393, Paper 24 at 12 n.5 (PTAB June 16, 2020). Such a stipulation
`
`“might better address concerns regarding duplicative efforts and potentially
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-Reply
`
`
`conflicting decisions in a much more substantial way … [and] might help ensure that
`
`an IPR functions as a true alternative.” Id. Factor 4 favors denial. Even had Petitioner
`
`made the type of stipulation described in Sand, it would have only weighed
`
`“marginally in favor of not exercising discretion.” Sand at 12; Evolved at 15.
`
`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. Thus, this factor is not neutral—it weighs in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`See Fintiv II at 15; Midas at 18; Evolved at 16. And even if the trial date were relevant
`
`here, as discussed above, trial and the precursor dispositive motions that could
`
`implicate validity issues will occur before the final written decision deadline.
`
`F.
`
`Factor 6: The petition is without merit and unlikely to succeed.
`
`Petitioner argues that, pursuant to the Memo, institution should not be denied
`
`because the Petition makes a compelling case that the testimony of Dr. Phinney
`
`“plainly shows that the ’706 patent claims are no more than well-known and obvious
`
`methods for conducting communication between a reading device and applications
`
`on a data carrier.” Reply at 5. Petitioner provides no further explanation as to how
`
`that testimony, or the Petition, is compelling, only alluding to the fact that Patent
`
`Owner did not challenge the Petition on the merits. Factor 6 is neutral at best, and
`
`when viewed in light of the other five Fintiv factors, weighs against institution.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 26, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-Reply
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /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,
`Aire Technology Limited.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (’706 Patent)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on
`
`October 26, 2022 by filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Case
`
`Tracking 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
`
`Date: October 26, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brett Cooper
`Brett Cooper, Reg. No. 55,085
`
`
`
`
`
`