`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 11,122,357
`Filing Date: August 5, 2013
`Issue Date: September 14, 2021
`
`Inventor: Gregory C. Burnett
`Title: FORMING VIRTUAL MICROPHONE ARRAYS USING
`DUAL OMNIDIRECTIONAL MICROPHONE ARRAY (DOMA)
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01321
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2022-01321
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`The Petition Does Not Present Compelling Evidence .......................... 1
`B.
`The Board Should Exercise its Discretion to Deny Institution ............. 2
`1.
`Likelihood of a Stay and Trial Date ............................................ 2
`2.
`Investment in Parallel Proceedings ............................................. 2
`3.
`Overlap of Issues ......................................................................... 3
`4.
`Overlap in Parties ........................................................................ 3
`5.
`Other Circumstances ................................................................... 3
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`IPR2022-01321
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description of Document
`Apple, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Public
`Version) in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-00984-ADA, dated May 25, 2022
`Google LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Public
`Version) in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA, dated May 25, 2022
`Defendant Google LLC’s Opposed Motion to Transfer to
`the Northern District of California (Public Version), Dkt.
`43, in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No.
`6:21-cv-00985-ADA dated April 29, 2022
`Defendant’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions in Jawbone
`Innovations, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00984-
`ADA, dated April 6, 2022
`Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions and
`Eligibility Contentions in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Case No. 2:21-cv-00186-JRG,
`dated March 24, 2022
`First Amended Complaint in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v.
`Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00984-ADA, Dkt. 19 (W.D. Tex.
`Dec. 23, 2021)
`Amended Scheduling Order in Jawbone Innovations, LLC
`v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00984-ADA, Dkt. 107 (W.D.
`Tex. Oct. 20, 2022)
`Order Denying Motion to Stay in RFCyber Corp. v. Google
`LLC, No. 2:20-cv-00274-JRG, Dkt. 201 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4,
`2022)
`Claim Construction Order in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00186-
`JRG, Dkt. 119 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2022)
`Joint Motion to Enter Amended Scheduling Order in
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-
`00984-ADA, Dkt. 106 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2022)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01321
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Description of Document
`Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00984-ADA, dated January 13, 2022
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc. Final Election of Asserted Prior
`Art in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`e al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00186-JRG, dated September 19,
`2022
`Joint Motion to Stay all Deadlines and Notice of Settlement
`in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No.
`2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 257, dated November 28,
`2022
`
`Exhibit No.
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01321
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., and Apple Inc.’s (collectively, “Petitioner”) Reply (Paper No. 13, “Reply”) fails
`
`to show that the Petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability or that the
`
`Fintiv factors weigh against discretionary denial. Accordingly, as explained in
`
`Jawbone’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper No. 12, “POPR”), the Board
`
`should deny the Petition.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. The Petition Does Not Present Compelling Evidence
`The Petition does not present compelling evidence of unpatentability. As
`
`explained in the POPR, Petitioner does not show that its combination renders any
`
`claim obvious. POPR, 7-13. In its Reply, Petitioner merely provides attorney
`
`argument. Reply at 1-3.
`
`Further, Petitioner does not substantively address its failure to identify a
`
`motivation to combine Kanamori and McCowan. Id. at 2. Instead, Petitioner merely
`
`cites its original, deficient arguments and asserts that a POSITA would use
`
`Kanamori’s far-field noise cancellation in a headset. Id. As explained in the POPR,
`
`the Petitioner’s arguments are infected with hindsight. POPR, 7-9. Finally,
`
`Petitioner merely asserts that its manufactured responses “look like” the Figures of
`
`the ’357 Patent. Reply, 2. Petitioner’s argument is irrelevant.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01321
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Accordingly, the Petition does not present compelling evidence of
`
`unpatentability, and discretionary denial is appropriate.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Exercise its Discretion to Deny
`Institution
`As Petitioner notes, the parties in the Samsung case have reached a settlement
`
`in principle, and the case is stayed pending that settlement. Reply at 3; Ex. 2013.
`
`Accordingly, it is highly likely that the case will be dismissed before any institution
`
`decision. Thus, institution would be a waste of the Board’s resources.
`
`Likelihood of a Stay and Trial Date
`1.
`As to the Apple case, the Court has ordered a stay to consider Apple’s transfer
`
`motion. Ex. 1029. Petitioner presents no evidence that the Court will not
`
`expeditiously resolve the motion or proceed to trial before the December 2023
`
`projected Final Written Decision Date. Reply at 3.
`
`Investment in Parallel Proceedings
`2.
`As noted in the POPR, the parties in the Apple case have completed Markman
`
`briefing and had begun discovery in earnest before the stay was entered. POPR at
`
`18-19. Thus, the parties have invested substantial resources in the invalidity
`
`proceedings in the District Court. This factor, therefore, weighs in favor of
`
`discretionary denial.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01321
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`3. Overlap of Issues
`Petitioner admits that Apple has failed to provide the Board’s favored Sotera
`
`stipulation. Reply at 4-5. Instead, Apple has only offered to stipulate not to pursue
`
`the exact same grounds as raised in this Petition. Thus, Apple’s stipulation leaves
`
`open the option for it to present substantially similar grounds in both the District
`
`Court and before the Board. Apple’s stipulation does nothing to prevent conflicting
`
`decisions and redundant work between the Board and the District Court. Moreover,
`
`Petitioner fails to address the complete overlap in claims and art in the District Court
`
`case. Id.
`
`This factor therefore weighs in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`4. Overlap in Parties
`Petitioner ignores that the parties in this proceeding are the same as the parties
`
`in the District Court litigations. See POPR at 20.
`
`5. Other Circumstances
`As noted in the POPR, Petitioner’s combination fails to disclose or render
`
`obvious numerous limitations. POPR, 20-21. Moreover, to the extent the Board
`
`considers the Western District of Texas’s claim construction order (Ex. 1027), that
`
`order weighs against institution as an inefficient use of the Board’s resources.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01321
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed above, the Board should deny the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: December 20, 2022
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/
`/Peter Lambrianakos
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Tel. 212-257-5797
`Fax. 212-257-5796
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01321
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`A copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply and Exhibit 2013 have
`
`been served on Petitioner’s counsel of record as follows:
`
`Ari R. Sharifahmadian
`Email: ali.sharifahmadian@arnoldporter.com
`Jin-Suk Park
`Email: jin.park@arnoldporter.com
`J. Christopher Moulder
`Email: chris.moulder@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001-3743
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Email: renner@fr.com
`David L. Holt
`Parvin Ghane
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`Attorneys for Apple Inc.
`
`
`December 20, 2022
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/
`/Peter Lambrianakos
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: 212-257-5797
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01321
`IPR2022-01321
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`PATENT NO. 11,122,357
`
`Fax: 212-257-5796
`Fax: 212-257-5796
`
`
`
`