`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CAROLYN W. HAFEMAN
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________________
`
`IPR2022-01193
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,892,287
`
`__________________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313–1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01193
`
`
`Petitioners, Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation, have requested Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-7 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,892,287 (“the ’287 Patent”). Petitioners have presented two materially distinct,
`
`non-cumulative petitions addressing a priority dispute regarding the effective filing
`
`date of the Challenged Claims. See IPR2022-01192 (the “November 2002 Priority
`
`Petition”) and IPR2022-01193 (the “November 2013 Priority Petition”). Petitioners
`
`respectfully request institution of both petitions for the reasons detailed below.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Detailed Reasons for Multiple Petitions Against the ’287 Patent.
`The ’287 patent claims priority through a series of continuations to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,601,606 (“the ’606 patent”), filed September 20, 2004, which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of Application No. 10/304,827 (“the ’827 application”), filed
`
`on November 25, 2002. Petitioners understand that Patent Owner (“PO”) is
`
`asserting a priority date no later than August 30, 2002 (prior to the filing date of
`
`the ’827 application) in the co-pending district court litigation. (See EX-1019, 9.)
`
`However, the November 2013 Priority Petition (IPR2022-01193) details that
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) introduced new matter into ’606 patent which severed any
`
`potential for priority benefit to the ’827 application. Specifically, the ’606 patent
`
`introduced a Retriever program which enabled remote communications solely for
`
`the purpose of changing the return/recovery information stored in a device.
`
`Additionally, even though designated as a continuation, U.S. Patent No. 9,021,610,
`
`
`
`157473859.2
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01193
`
`
`filed November 22, 2013, introduced more new matter through its originally filed
`
`claims, namely, initiating of return/recovery information by remote
`
`communications. The four corners of the ’606 patent specification, as filed, do not
`
`provide any disclosure of the claimed remote initiating. The November 2013
`
`Priority Petition demonstrates that the earliest effective filing date for the
`
`Challenged Claims is no earlier than November 22, 2013.
`
`
`
`The priority dispute between the parties justifies two petitions. The Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide expressly
`
`acknowledges that “a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under
`
`multiple prior art references” is a situation in which it is appropriate to file multiple
`
`petitions against the same patent. See Office Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 84
`
`Fed. Reg. 64280 (Nov. 20, 2019) (“TPG”). While the TPG notes that such
`
`circumstances may be rare, the facts in the present case here justify institution of
`
`two petitions challenging the ’287 Patent. See, e.g., 10X Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad
`
`Laboratories, Inc., IPR2020-00088, Paper 8, 46-47 (PTAB April 27, 2020)
`
`(granting institution of two parallel petitions, explaining that a priority fight
`
`concerning swear-behind dates for prior art references justifies concurrent filings
`
`with no stipulation by Patent Owner).
`
`
`
`The November 2002 Priority and November 2013 Priority Petitions rely on
`
`completely distinct prior art combinations asserted to address the different
`
`
`
`157473859.2
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01193
`
`
`effective filing dates for the Challenged Claims. The November 2002 Priority
`
`Petition relies on four different prior art references (two grounds) all of which pre-
`
`date the filing date of the ’827 application. The two November 2002 Priority
`
`grounds are viable regardless of whether the Challenged Claims are entitled to a
`
`pre-November 2013 filing date. The November 2013 Priority Petition, in contrast,
`
`presents a ground of anticipation based on the publication of the application for the
`
`’606 parent patent and a ground of obviousness based on the publication of the
`
`’827 application in combination with Chiu which describes the well-known
`
`process of remote management of a mobile device. The November 2013 Priority
`
`Petition relies almost exclusively on PO’s own prior art, removing the burden that
`
`might otherwise be imposed to analyze unfamiliar prior art.
`
`II. Ranking of the Petitions
`
`As set forth in the following table, Petitioners rank the November 2013
`
`Priority Petition higher than the November 2002 Priority Petition. Petitioners
`
`believe, however, that instituting both petitions is the fairest outcome because of
`
`the dispute regarding priority benefit between the parties. Petitioners have
`
`intentionally streamlined the November 2013 Priority Petition which is
`
`significantly below the permitted word count to limit the additional effort required
`
`by the parties and the Board to resolve the priority issue. Petitioners have also
`
`
`
`157473859.2
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01193
`
`
`relied on PO’s own prior art in the November 2013 Priority Petition, limiting the
`
`burden imposed on PO to analyze unfamiliar art.
`
`Petition
`
`1 November 2013
`IPR2022-01193
`2 November 2002
`IPR2002-01192
`
`Claims
`1-7
`
`1-7
`
`Grounds
`Obviousness over Hafeman ’298 and Chiu
`Anticipation by Hafeman ’670
`Obviousness over Jenne and Cohen
`Obviousness over Angelo and Helle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` /LORI A. GORDON/
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Reg. No. 50,633
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 2005
`
`
`
`157473859.2
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01193
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that true copies of the Petitioners’ Notice
`
`of Multiple Petitions were served via overnight delivery on the Patent Owner at the
`
`correspondence address of record as listed on PAIR:
`
`ANSEL M. SCHWARTZ
`201 North Craig Street, Suite 304
`Pittsburgh, PA 15213
`(412) 621-9222
`
`A courtesy copy was also sent via electronic mails to Patent Owner’s litigation
`
`counsel listed below:
`
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`Max L. Tribble Jr.
`mtribble@susmangodfrey.com
`Krisina J. Zuniga
`kzuniga@susmangodfrey.com
`Thomas V. DelRosario
`tdelrosario@susmangodfrey.com
`Kalpana Srinivasan
`ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
`Genevieve Wallace
`gwallace@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 8, 2022
`
`
`GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
`AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
`Lawrence M. Hadley
`lhadley@glaserweil.com
`Christopher N. McAndrew
`cmcandrew@glaserweil.com
`Jason C. Linger
`jlinger@glaserweil.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` /LORI A. GORDON/
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Reg. No. 50,633
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`157473859.2
`
`- 5 -
`
`
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
