throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket