`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`COURT DECISIONS
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`AGENCY DECISIONS
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations,
`IPR2017-00998, Paper 13 (Sep. 5, 2017) .................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`ipDataTel, LLC v. ICN Acquisition,
`IPR2018-01822, Paper 19 (Apr. 22, 2019) .......................................................1, 3
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 (Jan. 5, 2021) ..........................................................2, 3
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,342 (Oct. 11, 2018) .......................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply does not meaningfully dispute that Petitioner
`
`(i) is taking inconsistent claim construction positions before this panel and in
`
`District Court, (ii) failed to inform this panel it was doing so, and (iii) makes no
`
`showing that its petitioned grounds meet its own claim constructions. The Reply
`
`therefore confirms that institution should be denied.
`
`Petitioner devotes much of its Reply to alleging that claim construction is
`
`not necessary, but does not address or dispute the fact that Petitioner had the
`
`burden to identify its relied-on claim constructions and specify where each element
`
`of the construed claim is found in the art of record. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)-(4).
`
`Petitioner also does not dispute that it did not reveal or apply the constructions it
`
`simultaneously insists—in federal court, without informing this panel—must be
`
`applied to these claims for validity purposes. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion
`
`Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is axiomatic that claims
`
`are construed the same way for both invalidity and infringement.”). Petitioner’s
`
`failure, like that of the petitioner in Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations,
`
`IPR2017-00998, Paper 13 (Sep. 5, 2017), to mention “its seemingly inconsistent
`
`claim construction positions” in the two forums is a basis to deny institution. Id.,
`
`18; see ipDataTel, LLC v. ICN Acquisition, IPR2018-01822, Paper 19, 13-14 (Apr.
`
`22, 2019) (denying review where “[i]n the litigation, Petitioner...argued that [a]
`
`term…is indefinite” but had “not offered any explanation as to how its positions
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`
`
`here and in the District Court can be reconciled”).
`
`Petitioner complains that Patent Owner has not offered any constructions. It
`
`was Petitioner’s burden, not Patent Owner’s, to do that. As the POPR (at 10-17)
`
`explains, Office rulemaking has repeatedly confirmed petitioners may not take
`
`inconsistent claim construction positions between district court and IPR cases
`
`without justification. 83 Fed. Reg. 51,347-51,348 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending rules
`
`to “prevent[] parties from taking inconsistent positions, such as a patent challenger
`
`arguing for a broad scope in a PTAB proceeding (under BRI) and a narrow scope
`
`(under Phillips) in district court to avoid a finding of infringement.”); 51,342 (“the
`
`possibility of differing constructions for the same claim term is troubling,
`
`especially when claim construction takes place at the same time in parallel
`
`district court proceedings”). The Board has based denial of institution on such
`
`inconsistencies. E.g., Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2020-01184,
`
`Paper 11, 27 (Jan. 5, 2021) (denying institution where, “[s]ignificantly, Petitioner’s
`
`[claim construction] argument…seems to be inconsistent with its position
`
`advanced in the parallel litigation and the Federal Circuit’s interpretation”). Yet
`
`here, “Petitioner left it to Patent Owner to advise [the panel] of Petitioner’s
`
`differing claim construction arguments to the district court.” Facebook, 17.
`
`Moreover, even now Petitioner still fails to offer any justification for its
`
`inconsistent positions. Its silence is especially significant here because nothing
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`
`
`suggests, and the Petition offers no arguments for finding, that Petitioner’s own
`
`claim constructions are met by the raised grounds in this case. As explained at
`
`length in the POPR, for example, Petitioner has not shown that its combinations
`
`disclose or suggest “multiplexed” signals that are “interleave[d] or simultaneously
`
`transmit[ted],” as its District Court construction expressly requires of such signals.
`
`POPR, 27-33. Petitioner also provides no justification for alleging certain
`
`limitations are indefinite for infringement purposes but not for invalidity purposes.
`
`Facebook, 9-10; see also ipDataTel, 13-14 (denying petition where Petitioner
`
`argued only before court, not Board, that claim was indefinite).
`
`In conclusion, the Preliminary Reply does not meaningfully dispute that
`
`Petitioner’s claim construction positions are “inconsistent with its position
`
`advanced in the parallel litigation,” Samsung Elecs., 27, that it did “not inform the
`
`panel that Petitioner had taken a very different claim construction position before
`
`the district court,” Facebook, 17, and that it has not “offer[ed] any explanation as
`
`to how its positions here and in the [d]istrict [c]ourt can be reconciled,” ipDataTel,
`
`13-14. This inconsistency and silence furnish yet another independent basis to
`
`deny institution.
`
`For these reasons and the additional reasons set forth in the POPR,
`
`institution should be denied.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Kenneth J. Weatherwax /
`
`
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Reg. No. 54,528
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`Date: December 23, 2022
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the following document was served by
`
`electronic service, by agreement between the parties, on the date below:
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY
`
`The names and addresses of the parties being served are as follows:
`
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`Hyun Jin In
`
`Sangki Park
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Clint S. Wilkins
`
`
`
`
`IPR39843-0125IP1@fr.com
`jjm@fr.com
`in@fr.com
`spark@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Colette Woo /
`
`
`
`Date: December 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`