Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: February 8, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., and GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`RYAN HARDIN and ANDREW HILL,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: February 8, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., and GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`RYAN HARDIN and ANDREW HILL,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`(collectively “Samsung”) and Google LLC, (“Google”) (collectively
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 requesting an
`inter partes review of claims 18 and, 21–36 (“the Challenged Claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,984,447 B2 (“the ’447 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 4
`(“Pet.”). Petitioner filed a Declaration of Mr. David H. Williams in support
`of the Petition. Ex. 1003. Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp). Patent Owner filed a Declaration of Mr. Scott
`Andrew Denning in support of the Preliminary Response. Ex. 2001.
`Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material
`Differences Between Petitions for U.S. Patent No. 10,049,387.1 Paper 5
`(“Notice” or “Not.”). Patent Owner filed a Response to Petitioner’s Notice.
`Paper 10 (“Notice Response” or “Not. Resp.”).
`Petitioner filed an authorized Reply to the Preliminary Response.
`Paper 11 (“Prelim. Reply”).2 Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply.
`Paper 12 (“Prelim. Sur-reply”).
`
`We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to
`determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a). See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2018) (“The Board institutes the trial
`
`1 Petitioner filed, on the same day as the Petition, two other petitions
`challenging claims of the ’447 patent. See IPR2022-01333, IPR2022-01335.
`2 Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply is limited to the issue of discretionary denial
`pursuant to Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB
`Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), and, particularly, the effect of Samsung’s
`stipulation in related litigation, in accordance with Sotera Wireless, Inc. v.
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020)
`(precedential as to § II.A).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition
`shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering
`the Petition, the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response, as well as
`all supporting evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the
`Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in its challenge of at least one claim of the ’447 patent as
`unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter
`partes review of all Challenged Claims of the ’447 patent on the ground
`stated in the Petition.
`Our factual findings, claim construction, and legal conclusions at this
`stage of the proceeding are based on the evidentiary record developed thus
`far. This decision to institute trial is not a final decision as to the
`unpatentability of the claims for which inter partes review is instituted. Our
`final decision will be based on the full record developed during trial.
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify the ’447 patent as a subject of Hardin et al. v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No.
`2:21-CV-00290-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 70; Paper 8, 1.
`The parties state that Petitioner has also filed two other petitions
`against the ’447 patent, IPR2022-01333 and IPR2022-01335. Pet. 70;
`Paper 8, 1.
`The parties also state that Petitioner has filed petitions for the
`following related patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,779,418 (IPR2022-01330,
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Hardin,4 Salmre5
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`IPR2022-01331, IPR2022-01332) and U.S. Patent No. 10,049,387
`(IPR2022-01327, IPR2022-01328, IPR2022-01329). Pet. 70–71; Paper 8, 1.
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each identifies itself and no others as a
`real party in interest. Pet. 70; Paper 8, 1.
`C. Prior Art and Asserted Ground
`Petitioner asserts that claims 18 and 21–36 would have been
`unpatentable on the following ground (Pet. 3):
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §3
`18, 21–36
`103
`D. The ’447 Patent
`The ’447 patent is titled “Exclusive Delivery of Content within
`Geographic Areas.” Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’447 patent issued on
`April 20, 2021, from Application No. 16/019,285, which was filed on
`June 26, 2018 and claims priority through a series of continuation
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
`35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. One of the
`central issues in this proceeding is the priority date of the Challenged
`Claims. The ’447 patent application was filed on June 26, 2018 (Ex. 1001,
`code (22)), and claims priority to an application filed May 1, 2009 (id. at
`code (63)). Petitioner contests the ’447 patent’s priority claim, asserting that
`the earliest priority date of the Challenged Claims is January 29, 2015.
`Pet. 24. Because we find that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on the present record, we apply the current version
`of § 103 here. Our analysis, however, would be the same regardless of
`which version of the statute is applied because the critical issues before us
`are not impacted by the differences in the two versions of the statute.
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0279665 A1 (published Nov.
`4, 2010) (Ex. 1005, “Hardin”).
`5 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0116817 A1, published June
`1, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Salmre”).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`applications to Application No. 12/434,094, filed May 1, 2009, “the ’094
`application.” Id. at code (63).6 The ’094 application was published as U.S.
`Publication No. 2010/0279665 (Ex. 1005, code (10)) and issued as US
`Patent 8,433,296. Id.
`As background, the ’447 patent explains that advertisements and other
`content can be broadcast “to any mobile device within a city, or a similar
`area,” or can delivered over the Internet “in response to a request, received
`from the receiving device.” Ex. 1001, 1:50–57. According to the ’447
`patent, in order to provide more targeted advertising, a “content delivery
`platform can receive a request from a registered application program for
`content to be displayed on a mobile device, and the request can be used to
`determine a target location.” Id. at 2:3–7. An exemplary content delivery
`system is depicted in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`6 The ’094 application was published as U.S. Publication US 2010/0279665
`(Ex. 1005, (code 10)). Ex. 1001, code (63). Petitioner refers to the ’094
`application as “Hardin ’665.” Pet. 3.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is an abstract representation of exclusive content delivery to
`particular reserved areas. Ex. 1001, 2:52–53. System 100 depicted in
`Figure 1, provides “exclusive delivery of advertising or other content to
`registered applications running on mobile devices located within a particular
`proximity to a reserved geographic area.” Id. at 3:20–24. System 100
`“includes content delivery platform 112, which is in communication with
`developer platform 108, and systems or individuals operating under control
`of sponsor A 121, sponsor C 123, and sponsor B 125.” Id. at 3:24–28. The
`’447 patent provides that content delivery platform 112 receives a request
`from developer platform 108 to register a program or other application for
`use on mobile devices, and uses “the registered application program to
`provide selected content to mobile devices.” Id. at 3: 28–32. According to
`the ’447 patent, “a registered application program is provided to mobile
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`devices by developer platform 108, content delivery platform 112, one of
`sponsor A 121, sponsor C 123, or sponsor B 125, or by another desired
`delivery mechanism.” Id. at 3:33–37.
`The ’447 patent explains that “[s]ponsor A 121, sponsor C 123, or
`sponsor B 125 can reserve an exclusive interest in a particular geographic
`area by sending a request to content delivery platform 112.” Id. at 3:43–45.
`The ’447 patent further explains that “the request can be for exclusive
`delivery of content to mobile devices running any registered application
`within given geographic areas, or for content to be delivered to particular
`registered applications based on a target location.” Id. at 3:46–50.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’447 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 “is a diagram illustrating a target location other than the location of
`the mobile device executing a registered application.” Ex. 1001, 2:55–58.
`The ’447 patent explains the following regarding Figure 2:
`[A] user of registered application 231 is located within the
`perimeter defining a first sponsor’s reserved area 207. Object
`of interest 233 is located in second sponsor’s reserved area 207.
`In some embodiments, object of interest 233 can be any type of
`object of interest to the user of registered application 231. . . . In
`some embodiments, target location information 216 can be any
`type of information that can be used to determine the location
`of the object of interest 233. . . .
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`In response to receiving the target location
`
`information 216 from object of interest 233, registered
`application 231 can send a request 213 to content delivery
`platform 212. The request can include, but is not limited to,
`information indicating the location of object of interest 233, a
`request for content, information indicating the location of
`registered application 231, information indicating the identity
`of the registered application 231, and a previously received
`request identifier.
`
`Content delivery platform 212 can receive and process
`request 213 to identify the location of registered application 231
`and the location of object of interest 233. . . .
`Content delivery platform 212 can provide registered
`application information 217 to second sponsor 225 to allow
`second sponsor 225 to deliver second sponsor’s content 214 to
`registered application 231. . . . In some embodiments,
`application information 217 need not be provided to second
`sponsor 225, but instead can be processed internally by content
`delivery platform 212, and a determination can be made for
`second sponsor’s content 214 to be delivered directly to
`application 231 from content delivery platform 212, or a third
`party (not illustrated).
`Id. at 5:54–6:35.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ’447 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4 “is a flowchart illustrating a method of reserving a geographic
`area.” Ex. 1001, 2:62–63. In particular, the ’447 patent states that
`method 400 “allow[s] sponsors to reserve particular geographic areas.” Id.
`at 9:4–6. The ’447 patent explains the following regarding the disclosed
`method of reserving a geographic area:
`Method 400 begins, as illustrated by block 401. As illustrated
`by block 403, a content delivery platform, for example content
`delivery platform 112 as illustrated in FIG. 1, can receive a
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`request for sponsor registration . . . . As illustrated by
`block 405, the sponsor can establish perimeters defining
`geographic areas of exclusive or semi-exclusive control. These
`geographic areas are areas the sponsor wishes to reserve for
`delivery of his own advertisements or other content controlled
`by the sponsor.
`. . . .
`As illustrated by block 407, a sponsor’s request for a
`selected area is received. . . .
`As illustrated by block 411, if an area selected for
`exclusive or semi-exclusive content delivery is available, the
`selected geographic area can be reserved for the sponsor. . . .
`A sponsor can provide content for delivery to mobile
`devices having target locations contained within its reserved
`area, as illustrated by block 415.
`Id. at 9:7–55.
`
`1. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 18 is the sole independent claim challenged in this proceeding,
`is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below:
`[18.pre]7 A non-transitory computer readable medium
`tangibly embodying at least one program of computer executable
`instructions, wherein the at least one program of computer
`executable instructions comprises at least one instruction for:
`[18.a] in response to receiving, in a mobile device, from
`an application program during its execution in the mobile device,
`a request for having at least a first identifier being associated with
`a first designated geographic area of interest provided to the
`application program
`[18.b] after it has been determined, by at least use of at
`least one processor tangibly embodied by the mobile device and
`of location information representing at least one physical
`
`7 We use Petitioner’s limitation labels and paragraphing for ease of
`reference.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`geographic location of the mobile device as determined by a
`location-determination component tangibly embodied by the
`mobile device, that the mobile device has at least entered the first
`designated geographic area of interest and has remained therein
`for at least a predetermined length of time,
`[18.c] after receiving, from the application program, both
`a first data string comprising the first identifier to be associated
`with the first designated geographic area of interest and first
`geographic data to be used for defining the first designated
`geographic area of interest and to be used with the first identifier
`to establish, in a memory tangibly embodied by the mobile
`device, the first designated geographic area of interest as a first
`area specifically reserved for delivery of the first identifier
`related to the application program,
`[18.d] after establishing, in the memory, the first
`designated geographic area of interest as the first area
`specifically reserved for delivery of the first identifier related to
`the application program,
`[18.e] after storing, in the memory, a first record
`comprising the first identifier, and
`[18.f] after determining, by at least use of the at least one
`processor and of the location information, that the mobile device
`has at least entered the first area specifically reserved for delivery
`of the first identifier related to the application program and has
`remained therein for at least the predetermined length of time,
`[18.g] delivering, from the first record stored in the
`memory and to the application program, at least first datum
`comprising at least the first identifier.
`Ex. 1001, 18:63–19:38.
`E. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a comparable
`field of study and at least five years of professional experience in mobile or
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`location-based computing or other relevant academic experience.” Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–41). Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding,
`does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the
`art. Prelim. Resp. 46. Mr. Denning, however, applies Mr. Williams’ level
`of ordinary skill in the art in Mr. Denning’s Declaration in support in Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26.
`For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s level of skill
`in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the
`’447 patent and the prior art.
`F. Claim Construction
`We apply the same claim construction standard used by Article III
`federal courts and the International Trade Commission, both of which follow
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its
`progeny. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). The claim construction standard
`includes construing claims in accordance with “the ordinary and customary
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and
`the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.
`Petitioner contends that “no express claim constructions are
`necessary, and the claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning
`in this proceeding.’” Pet. 22–23.
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position. . Prelim. Resp.
`
`33.
`
`We determine that an express construction of any claim term is not
`necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman
`Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only
`be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999)).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`As noted above, Petitioner filed three petitions challenging claims of
`the ’447 patent. Recently, we instituted inter partes review in IPR2022-
`01333, one of the cases in which Petitioner challenges claims of the
`’447 patent. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Hardin, IPR2022-01333, Paper 13
`(PTAB Feb. 7, 2023) (institution decision). The parties acknowledge that
`the issues raised in this proceeding are substantially identical to those raised
`in IPR2022-01333. Not. 3 (“Petitioner[s] note[s] that the analysis in each
`petition is substantially similar due to the repetitive nature of the challenged
`claims.”); Prelim. Resp. 1 n.1 (“Because the petitions each raise the same
`written description argument, the inventors’ Patent Owner Preliminary
`Responses are substantively identical.”). Based on our review of the
`briefing filed in this proceeding, we agree with the parties that the briefs in
`this proceeding and IPR2022-01333 raise substantially the same issues,
`arguments, and evidence. In particular, we note at least the following
`substantial similarities between the issues in this proceeding and those raised
`in IPR2022-01333:
`(1) Petitioner asserts that substantially the same two claim limitations
`lack written description support in the ’094 application and U.S. Patent
`Application No. 13/856,392 (“the ’392 application”) (compare Pet. 23–28,
`with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 (petition) at 23–28);
`(2) Petitioner asserts that because these limitations lack written
`description support in the ’094 and ’392 applications, the Challenged Claims
`are not entitled to the priority date of either of these applications and,
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`therefore, Hardin ’665 (the pre-issuance publication of the ’094 application)
`is available as prior art to the Challenged Claims (compare Pet. 1, 2, 28–29,
`with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 1, 2, 28–29);
`(3) Petitioner asserts that the same combination of references—
`Hardin ’665 and Salmre—would have rendered the subject matter of the
`claims challenged in each petition obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention (compare Pet. 29–62, with IPR2022-01333,
`Paper 4 at 29–66);
`(4) Petitioner asserts the same reasons with rational underpinning as to
`why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre as proposed with a reasonable
`expectation of success (compare Pet. 59–65, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4
`at 66–71);
`(5) Patent Owner does not raise an argument responding to
`Petitioner’s challenge based on Hardin ’665 and Salmre aside from whether
`the Challenged Claims are entitled to the priority date of the ’094 application
`(see generally Prelim. Resp.; IPR2022-01333, Paper 9 (preliminary
`response));
`(6) Patent Owner relies on the same argument and evidence to assert
`that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a) and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11
`(PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (compare Prelim. Resp. 61–66, with
`IPR2022-01333, Paper 9 at 61–66);
`(7) Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Notice relies on the same
`argument and evidence to assert that we should exercise our discretion to
`deny institution of the instant Petition and the petition asserted in IPR2022-
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`01335 (i.e., Petitioner’s second- and third-ranked petitions challenging
`claims of the ’447 patent) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Petitioner
`should have challenged all of the claims of the ’447 patent in a single
`petition (compare Notice Resp., with IPR2022-01333, Paper 10 (Patent
`Owner’s notice response)); and
`(8) Patent Owner relies on the same argument and evidence to assert
`that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (compare Prelim. Resp. 34–44, with IPR2022-01333,
`Paper 9 at 34–44).
`With the exception of issue (7), which we address further below,8 our
`analysis of the parties’ arguments and evidence, at this stage of the
`proceeding, is identical to the detailed analysis we undertook and fully set
`forth in the institution decision in IPR2022-01333 (Paper 13). Therefore, we
`adopt and incorporate our findings and determinations from that decision as
`though they were fully set forth herein.
`Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in IPR2022-01333, Paper 13,
`we: (1) determine, based on the present record, that the Challenged Claims
`of the ’447 patent are not entitled to the priority date of the ’094 application,
`and, therefore, Hardin ’665 is available as prior art to the ’447 patent;
`(2) determine that, on balance, considering the record presently before us,
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`showing that the combination of Hardin ’665 and Salmre would have
`rendered the subject matter of claims 18 and 21–36 of the ’447 patent
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention;
`
`8 We discuss issue (7) further below because our consideration of that issue
`here is different than our consideration of that issue in IPR2022-01333.
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`(3) decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a) and Fintiv; and (4) decline to exercise our discretion to deny
`institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`III. DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) –
`MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`As noted above, Petitioner filed three petitions on the same day in
`IPR2022-01333, IPR2022-01334, and IPR2022-01335, challenging different
`claim sets of the ’447 patent. Pet. 70–71; Not. 1. Because our analysis of
`whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution of the instant Petition
`(i.e., Petitioner’s second-ranked petition) is different than our analysis of this
`issue in the context of Petitioner’s first-ranked petition (in IPR2022-01333),
`we address this issue here fully. We begin with Petitioner’s Notice which,
`pursuant to the Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“Trial Practice
`Guide”), which provides a ranking of the three petitions in the order in
`which Petitioner wishes the Board to consider the merits and a succinct
`explanation of the differences between the Petitions. See PTAB
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59–60 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).9 In
`IPR2022-01333, Petitioner challenges claims 1–17 and ranks the petition as
`“A.” Not. 1. In this proceeding, Petitioner challenges claims 18 and 21–36,
`and ranks the instant Petition as “B.” Id. And, in IPR2022-01335,
`Petitioner challenges claims 19–20 and 37–52 and ranks the petition as “C.”
`Id.
`
`As noted above, in each of the three petitions, Petitioner raises only
`one ground and that ground relies on the same combination of references,
`Hardin ’665 and Salmre. Not. 1. Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 18, and 19
`
`9 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`are independent and that the analyses of “these three similar independent
`claims (and similar corresponding dependent claims)” are “substantially
`similar due to the repetitive nature of the challenged claims.” Id. at 3.
`Petitioner specifies that claim 1 recites a mobile device, claim 18 is a
`Beauregard claim,10 and claim 19 is a method claim. Id. Petitioner further
`acknowledges that, “given the similarity between the independent claims,
`the Board’s analysis of one petition will in all likelihood be similar to the
`analysis required by the other two.” Id. at 4.
`Despite the similarities across the petitions, Petitioner contends that
`three petitions “are necessary because there was no practicable way to fit the
`challenges in a single petition containing less than 14,000 words.” Not. 2.
`As support, Petitioner asserts that (1) the claims of the ’447 patent are “very
`long,” comprising 8,263 words; (2) Patent Owner has asserted forty-nine
`claims of the ’447 patent in the co-pending district court case; and
`(3) “demonstrating the ’447 patent’s broken priority chain” entails an
`“extensive discussion of the prosecution history” as well as “requires
`analysis not normally needed in petitions for inter partes review.” Id.
`Petitioner further asserts that it has “drafted the challenges as efficiently as
`possible,” and that “each petition relies on the same prior art combination,”
`thereby “easing any burden on the Board.” Id. at 3. Petitioner adds that it
`neither serially challenged the same claims based on different references nor
`had the benefit of any preliminary response, given that it filed all three
`petitions concurrently. Id.
`
`
`10 A Beauregard claim is a computer-readable medium claim, named after
`the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re
`Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`
`According to Petitioner, denying institution of any of the petitions
`would be unfair. Not. 4. Petitioner asserts that it “neither drafted the
`lengthy claims of the ’447 patent nor had any say in how many claims would
`be included in the patent.” Id. Petitioner further asserts that it had no “say
`in what claims to assert in district court litigation” and that Patent Owner
`“should bear any burden caused by an unreasonable multiplicity of lengthy
`claims.” Id.
`Patent Owner counters that “at most only one petition should be
`instituted . . . and the rest denied.” Not. Resp. 1. Patent Owner contends
`that our Trial Practice Guide “confirms[] [that] filing three petitions against
`a single patent is prima facie unnecessary and unreasonable.” Id. at 3 (citing
`CTPG 59). Patent Owner also points out that Petitioner fails to acknowledge
`or attempt to rebut the statement in the Trial Practice Guide concerning the
`filing of three or more petitions. Id.
`Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner’s argument that the
`claims in the ’447 patent are very long is without merit. Not. Resp. 4.
`According to Patent Owner, “[e]ven if the claims total 8,236 words, that still
`leaves nearly 5,800 words for analysis (and nearly 19,800 words in two
`petitions).” Id. Additionally, Patent Owner contends that the fact that the
`petitions are based on the same broken priority chain arguments and the
`same prior art combination “weigh[s] against, not for, instituting multiple
`petitions.” Id. According to Patent Owner, “other than different claims,
`Petitioner[] concede[s] that the petitions are materially the same.” Id. (citing
`Not. 3).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board “is permitted, but never
`compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech.,
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)
`(“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). That is,
`institution of an inter partes review is discretionary. In evaluating whether
`to exercise that discretion here, we turn to the Trial Practice Guide, which
`provides guidance on whether institution of more than one concurrently filed
`petition challenging the same patent is appropriate. See CTPG 59.
`The Trial Practice Guide states that “one petition should be sufficient
`to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. “Two or
`more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time . . .
`may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent
`owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” Id. (citing
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b)). Although rare circumstances may necessitate two
`petitions, “the Board finds it unlikely that circumstances will arise where
`three or more petitions by a petitioner with respect to a particular patent will
`be appropriate.” Id. We do not agree with Patent Owner, however, that this
`statement in the Trial Practice Guide means that the filing of three petitions
`challenging the same patent “is prima facie unreasonable and unnecessary.”
`See Not. Resp. 3. Rather, our determination is based on the specific facts of
`each case, starting with Petitioner’s explanation of why multiple petitions
`may be necessary.
`To help the Board determine whether multiple petitions are necessary,
`the Trial Practice Guide further instructs a petitioner filing multiple petitions
`challenging the same patent to explain “the differences between the
`petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why
`the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it
`identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C.
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`§ 314(a).” CTPG 59–60. Additionally, the Trial Practice Guide instructs the
`patent owner to “clearly proffer any necessary stipulations,” where the
`patent owner asserts that “the differences identified by the petitioner are
`directed to an issue that is not material or not in dispute.” Id. at 61. The
`patent owner may, for example, “seek to avoid additional petitions by
`proffering a stipulation that certain claim limitations are not disputed or that
`certain references qualify as prior art.” Id.
`In light of the particular facts before us, we decline to exercise our
`discretion to deny the Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In particular,
`we recognize that the claims are very long (e.g., claim 1 is nearly a column
`in length) and that Patent Owner asserts forty-nine claims in district court,
`including the three independent claims. Unlike many cases involving only a
`single petition, the instant Petition, as well as the other two petitions
`challenging claims of the ’447 patent, include a lengthy and detailed
`argument as to whether the ’447 patent is entitled to claim priority to
`Hardin ’665. Pet. 23–29. As to this priority challenge, Petitioner incurred
`the use of additional space to repeat substantially the same arguments
`concerning the specification of the ’447 patent, the prosecution history of the
`’447 patent and related patents, and Petitioner’s priority arguments in each
`petition.
`Additionally, the usual considerations of fairness, timing, and
`efficiency do not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to deny
`institution. In particular, the petitions were filed concurrently, which means
`that Petitioner did not gain a timing advantage that might otherwise occur
`were the petitions filed serially. Additionally, the three proceedings can be
`coordinated or consolidated, and a common schedule adopted. Further,
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01334
`Patent 10,984,447 B2
`
`given that the same, single ground is raised in each petition
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
