UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`DEXCOM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2024-00521
`U.S. Patent No. 11,298,056
`Issued: April 12, 2022
`Application No. 17/411,154
`Filed: August 25, 2021
`
`Title: METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR EARLY SIGNAL ATTENUATION
`DETECTION AND PROCESSING
`
`_________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,298,056
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`Page
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................... vii
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .......................................... xii
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................... xii
`
`Related Matters ........................................................................ xii
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information .......... xii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Statement Of Relief Requested ............................................................. 5
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT USE ITS
`DISCRETION TO DENY INSTITUTION OF THIS PETITION .................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Section 325(d) Does Not Warrant Discretionary Denial ...................... 6
`
`Parallel District Court Proceedings ....................................................... 8
`
`This Petition Should Be Instituted Despite Institution
`On Different Claims Of The Same Patent In IPR2023-01251 ............. 8
`
`D.
`
`The General Plastic Factors Weigh Against Discretionary Denial ...... 8
`
`IV. THE ’056 PATENT .......................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Specification ........................................................................................16
`
`Prosecution History .............................................................................18
`
`Claims ..................................................................................................19
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AND LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ..................19
`
`A.
`
`State Of The Art ..................................................................................19
`
`Page i
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Sensors With Working,
`Reference, And Counter Electrodes ..........................................20
`
`Sensor Sensitivity Calibration
`Data Was Used To Calibrate Sensors .......................................20
`
`3. Microprocessor Computations ..................................................21
`
`4.
`
`Bluetooth Communication ........................................................22
`
`B.
`
`Level Of Skill In The Art ....................................................................23
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“sensor misposition error” ...................................................................25
`
`“receive processed sensor data
`from the data processing and transmitter unit” ...................................26
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIM 13 IS OBVIOUS OVER
`PATEL-2009 IN VIEW OF PARADIGM® REAL-TIME ..........................27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Patel-2009 (EX1212) Is Prior Art .......................................................27
`
`Paradigm® REAL-Time (EX1211) Is Prior Art .................................28
`
`Patel-2009 (EX1212) ...........................................................................33
`
`Paradigm® REAL-Time (EX1211) ....................................................37
`
`Combination Of Patel-2009 And Paradigm® REAL-Time ................38
`
`1. Motivation To Combine And Expectation Of Success.............40
`
`F.
`
`Ground 1 Claim Mappings ..................................................................42
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................42
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`[1.A] (Preamble) .............................................................42
`
`[1.B] ................................................................................43
`
`[1.C] ................................................................................46
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`j)
`
`k)
`
`l)
`
`[1.D] ................................................................................48
`
`[1.E] ................................................................................50
`
`[1.F].................................................................................52
`
`[1.G] ................................................................................53
`
`[1.H] ................................................................................54
`
`[1.I] .................................................................................54
`
`[1.J] .................................................................................56
`
`[1.K] ................................................................................57
`
`[1.L] ................................................................................57
`
`2.
`
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................59
`
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIM 29 IS OBVIOUS OVER
`PATEL-2009, PARADIGM® REAL-TIME, AND GOLDSMITH .............63
`
`A. Goldsmith (EX1251) ...........................................................................63
`
`B.
`
`Combination Of Patel-2009,
`Paradigm® REAL-Time, And Goldsmith ..........................................69
`
`1. Motivation To Combine And Expectation Of Success.............72
`
`C. Ground 2 Claim Mappings ..................................................................76
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................76
`
`Claim 29 ....................................................................................76
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................83
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................85
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................86
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................25
`
`Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.,
`8 F.4th 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...............................................................................33
`
`Board Decisions
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC. v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) ................................................... 6
`
`Am. Express Co. v. Harvey Lunenfeld,
`CBM2014-00050, Paper 51 (PTAB May 22, 2015) ............................................33
`
`Cirrus Design Corp. v. Fleming,
`IPR2020-00762, Paper 19 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2020) ........................................... 13, 15
`
`Crestron Elecs., Inc. v. Intuitive Bldg Controls, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01460, Paper 14 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2016) ................................................33
`
`Elec. Arts Inc. v. White Knuckle IP, LLC,
`IPR2015-01595, Paper 38 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2017) ................................................33
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Vestas Wind Systems A/S et. al.,
`IPR2018-00928, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2018) ..................................................25
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................9, 15
`
`Haliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC,
`IPR2014-01186, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2015) ......................................... 33, 34
`
`Hum Indus. Tech., Inc. v. Amsted Rail Co., Inc.,
`IPR2023-00538, Paper 15 68-69 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2023) ...................................... 6
`
`L & P Prop. Mgmt. Co. v. Nat’l Prod. Inc.,
`IPR2016-00475, Paper 27 (PTAB July 19, 2017) ................................................34
`
`Page iv
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`MacSports, Inc. v. Idea Nuevo, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01006, Paper 6 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2018) ................................................33
`
`Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. Niazi Licensing Corp.,
`IPR2018-00609, Paper 8 (PTAB Aug. 20, 2018) ...............................................28
`
`Philip Morris Prod., S.A., v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00921, Paper 13 (PTAB Aug. 5, 2021) ................................................27
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Rosetta-Wireless Corp., I
`PR2016-00622, Paper 48 (PTAB Aug. 21, 2017) ................................................34
`
`See Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., v. Carucel Invs., L.P.,
`IPR2019-01573, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 22, 2020) .................................................... 9
`
`Western Digital Corp. v. Spex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00084, Paper 14 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2018) ...............................................25
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................... 28, 30, 33, 64
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ........................................................................................................15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ................................................................................................. 6, 7, 9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019) ............................................... 9
`
`MPEP § 2128 ...........................................................................................................33
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 104 ........................................................................................................25
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.2 .......................................................................................................85
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 .......................................................................................................86
`
`Page v
`
`

`

`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 ..................................................................................................24
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`Page vi
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,298,056 (“the ’056 Patent”)
`
`Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 17/411,154 (“Harper ’154 file history”)
`
`Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 17/245,719 (“Harper ’719 file history”)
`
`Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 16/228,910 (“Harper ’910 file history”)
`
`Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 15/061,774 (“Harper ’774 file history”)
`
`Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 13/925,694 (“Harper ’694 file history”)
`
`Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 12/769,635 (“Harper ’635 file history”)
`
`Declaration of Brian Gross, dated February 9, 2023 (“Gross
`Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Brian Gross
`
`Affidavit of Nathaniel E. Frank-White (“Internet Archive
`Affidavit”)
`
`Exhibits A and B to Affidavit of Nathaniel E. Frank-White
`(“Paradigm® REAL-Time Archive”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0085768 to Patel et
`al. (“Patel-2009”)
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application No.
`12/056,651 (“Patel-2009 file history”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/976,886 (“Patel-2009
`provisional”)
`
`No.
`
`1201
`
`1202
`
`1203
`
`1204
`
`1205
`
`1206
`
`1207
`
`1208
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`
`1212
`
`1213
`
`1214
`
`Page vii
`
`

`

`No.
`
`1215
`
`1216
`
`1217
`
`1218
`
`1219
`
`1220
`
`1221
`
`1222
`
`1223
`
`1224
`
`1225
`
`1226
`
`1227
`
`1228
`
`1229
`
`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0119705 to Patel et
`al. (“Patel-2008”)
`
`Unused
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,641,533 to Causey et al. (“Causey”)
`
`Unused
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0202859 to
`Mastrototaro et al. (“Mastrototaro”)
`
`Unused
`
`Unused
`
`Unused
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0122353 to
`Shahmirian et al. (“Shahmirian”)
`
`Unused
`
`Geoffrey McGarraugh, The Chemistry of Commercial Continuous
`Glucose Monitors, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 11.S1
`(2009)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0193025 to Steil et
`al.
`
`C. Choleau et al., Calibration of a Subcutaneous Amperometric
`Glucose Sensor Implanted for 7 Days in Diabetic Patients: Part
`2. Superiority of the One-Point Calibration Method, Biosensors
`and Bioelectronics 17.8 (2002)
`
`G. Velho et al., In Vivo Calibration of a Subcutaneous Glucose
`Sensor
`for Determination
`of
`Subcutaneous Glucose
`Kinetics, Diabetes, American Diabetes Association 1.3 (1988)
`
`John J. Mastrototaro, The MiniMed Continuous Glucose
`Monitoring System, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2.1
`(2000)
`
`1230
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,847 to Mastrototaro et al.
`
`Page viii
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`No.
`
`1231
`
`1232
`
`1233
`
`1234
`
`1235
`
`1236
`
`1237
`
`1238
`
`1239
`
`1240
`
`1241
`
`Description
`
`V. Poitout et al., A Glucose Monitoring System for on line
`Estimation in Man of Blood Glucose Concentration Using a
`Miniaturized Glucose Sensor Implanted in the Subcutaneous
`Tissue and a Wearable Control Unit, Diabetologia 36 (1993)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0224109 to Steil et
`al.
`
`D. Barry Keenan, Ph.D. et al., Delays in Minimally Invasive
`Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices: A Review of Current
`Technology, Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 3.5
`(2009)
`
`Unused
`
`S. Armstrong, Wireless Connectivity for Health and Sports
`Monitoring: a Review, British Journal of Sports Medicine (2007)
`
`Alexandros Pantelopoulos & Nikolaos Bourbakis, A Survey on
`Wearable Biosensor Systems for Health Monitoring, 30th Annual
`International Conference of the IEEE EMBS Conference (2008)
`
`Excerpts from Diabetes Forecast, November 2007
`
`Excerpts from Diabetes Forecast, August 2007
`
`Bruce Buckingham et al., Real-Time Continuous Glucose
`Monitoring, Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes &
`Obesity 14.4 (2007)
`
`Bruce Buckingham, M.D., Clinical Overview of Continuous
`Glucose Monitoring,
`Journal of Diabetes Science and
`Technology 2.2 (2008)
`
`U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation
`and Research. Paradigm Real Time System, Premarket Approval,
`dated
`April
`7,
`2006.
`Retrieved
`from
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/
`pma.cfm?id=P980022S013 on July 21, 2023.
`
`Page ix
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`No.
`
`1242
`
`Description
`
`Excerpts from Steven W. Smith, The Scientist and Engineer’s
`Guide to Digital Signal Processing, California Technical Pub.
`(1997)
`
`1243
`
`B.A. Shenoi, Introduction to Digital Signal Processing and Filter
`Design, John Wiley & Sons (2006)
`
`1244 Medtronic Inc., News Release: Medtronic Receives FDA
`Approval for World’s First Insulin Pump with Real-Time
`Continuous Glucose Monitoring, dated April 13, 2006. Retrieved
`from
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060427084431/http://
`wwwp.medtronic.com:80/Newsroom/
`NewsReleaseDetails.do?itemId=1144875806140&lang=en_US
`on July 21, 2023.
`
`1245 Marc D. Breton Ph.D. et al., Optimum Subcutaneous Glucose
`Sampling and Fourier Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitors,
`Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2.3 (2008)
`
`1246 Mark R. Burge, MD et al., Continuous Glucose Monitoring: The
`Future of Diabetes Management, Diabetes Spectrum 21.2 (2008)
`
`1247
`
`1248
`
`1249
`
`1250
`
`Adam Heller & Ben Feldman, Electrochemical Glucose Sensors
`and Their Applications in Diabetes Management, Chem. Rev. 108
`(2008)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,391,250 to Cheney et al.
`
`List of Challenged Claims
`
`“ABBOTT’S INITIAL CLAIM CHARTS” served Dec. 20, 2023
`in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. DexCom Inc., No. 1-23-cv-00239
`(D. Del.)1
`
`
`1 While EX1250 is marked as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–OUTSIDE
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” footnote 1 states that Abbott made this designation
`
`“[o]nly out of an abundance of caution based on the citation of documents produced
`
`
`
`Page x
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`No.
`
`1251
`
`1252
`
`1253
`
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0093786 to
`Goldsmith and Hayes (“Goldsmith”)
`
`Unused
`
`Scheduling Order, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. DexCom Inc.,
`No. 1-23-cv-00239 (D. Del. Sep. 19, 2023)
`
`
`
`by DexCom and marked as such.” Id. at 1 n.1 (emphasis added). As EX1250 is a
`
`cover pleading that includes no citations to confidential documents, Petitioner
`
`DexCom does not file this exhibit under seal.
`
`Page xi
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Dexcom, Inc. is the sole real party-in-interest.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The ’056 Patent (EX1201) has been asserted in the following litigation:
`
`
`
`Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v. DexCom, Inc., Case No. 1:23-
`
`cv-00239 (DED), filed March 3, 2023 (the “Related Litigation”).
`
`3.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Andrew M. Mason, Reg. No. 64,034
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`
`
`
`
`120
`
`John D. Vandenberg, Reg. No. 31,312
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`
`Amy Haspel, Reg. No. 78,385
`amy.haspel@klarquist.com
`
`Tucker T. Mottl, Reg. No. 74,763
`tucker.mottl@klarquist.com
`
`
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon, 97204
`503-595-5300 (phone)
`503-595-5301 (fax)
`
`
`Petitioner consents to service via email at the above email addresses and the
`
`email address of Dexcom-Harper@klarquist.com.
`
`Page xii
`
`

`

`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (b), concurrently filed with this petition is a
`
`Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner and appointing the above counsel.
`
`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`Page xiii
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`Dexcom, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 13 and 29 of U.S. Patent 11,298,056 (“the ’056 patent,” EX1201),
`
`allegedly owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons set
`
`forth below, these claims should be found unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The present Petition challenges 13 and 29, which each depends directly from
`
`independent claim 1. Petitioner’s August 1, 2023, petition in IPR2023-01251
`
`explained how the Patel-2009/Paradigm Combination renders obvious claim 1. The
`
`Board instituted IPR based on that petition on February 5, 2024. Petitioner now files
`
`this additional petition in IPR2024-00521, building off the exact same base
`
`combination of IPR1251-01251 to show the unpatentability of claims 13 and 29,
`
`which were recently asserted in the Related Litigation.
`
`As claims 13 and 29 depend from claim 1, the showing for the claim 1
`
`elements are unchanged from those already presented in the first-filed petition. This
`
`new petition explains how the Patel-2009/Paradigm Combination renders claim 13
`
`unpatentable under Patent Owner’s apparent district court construction of the recited
`
`“sensor misposition error.” And claim 29, which relates to use of a watch as a
`
`secondary receiver within the claimed system, is rendered obvious by the addition
`
`of secondary reference Goldsmith (EX1251) to the combination. Goldsmith teaches
`
`the benefits and implementation details of using a watch monitoring device within a
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`glucose monitoring system and, like Patel-2009, is a Medtronic patent publication.
`
`For the reasons explained further below, the Board should institute this petition and
`
`find claims 13 and 29 unpatentable. Institution would allow the Board to efficiently
`
`resolve these unpatentability issues in one forum.
`
`The ’056 patent claims a glucose monitoring system in which a receiver unit
`
`wirelessly receives processed glucose sensor data and then displays that data in
`
`graph form. The supposed innovation is display of a data gap on the graph when
`
`there is an adverse condition (e.g., a communication error) and then later backfilling
`
`this gap upon correction of the adverse condition (e.g., communication being re-
`
`established). The ’056 patent illustrates the data gap feature and backfill in FIG. 7A
`
`and FIG. 7B, respectively:
`
`
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`
`
`EX1201, Fig. 7A (annotated in red) & Fig. 7B (annotated in blue); see also id.,
`
`12:26-39 & 12:47-13:5. However, this simplistic feature was well-known before the
`
`alleged invention and plainly described in the prior art.
`
`Over a year earlier, a Medtronic user manual described the same backfill
`
`features in the same context of wirelessly monitoring and graphically displaying
`
`glucose sensor data, explaining that “even though your system is ‘out of range,’
`
`continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data can be re-populated.” EX1211
`
`(“Paradigm® REAL-Time”), 8. It shows how prior to re-population (backfill) of
`
`data, a data gap is displayed:
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`EX1211, 8, 73 (excerpted; annotated in red). After communications resume, these
`
`data gaps are re-populated (backfilled):
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., 8, 64 (excerpted; annotated in blue).
`
`In a patent application with priority to October 2007, Patel-2009 (EX1212),
`
`Medtronic disclosed storing calculated glucose values in a glucose sensor transceiver
`
`during failed communication and synchronizing these values from the transceiver to
`
`a monitoring device when communication is re-established. EX1212, [0086].
`
`Together, Patel-2009 and Paradigm® REAL-Time render obvious claim 13; a
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`combination with a third Medtronic CGM publication, Goldsmith (EX1251), renders
`
`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`obvious claim 29.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`Statement Of Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 13 and 29 of the ’056 patent
`
`on the following statutory grounds:
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Patel-2009 (EX1212) and
`Paradigm® REAL-Time
`(EX1211)
`
`Patel-2009, Paradigm®
`REAL-Time, and
`Goldsmith (EX1251)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`29
`
`Sections VI-VIII present evidence of unpatentability and establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will show each challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’056 patent is available for IPR, and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`Petitioner authorizes Account No. 02-4550 to be charged for any fees,
`
`including those enumerated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15.
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT USE ITS
`DISCRETION TO DENY INSTITUTION OF THIS PETITION
`
`A.
`
`Section 325(d) Does Not Warrant Discretionary Denial
`
`Neither art nor argument advanced by this petition is substantially similar to
`
`those previously before the office. See Advanced Bionics, LLC. v. Med-El
`
`Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 7-9 (PTAB Feb. 13,
`
`2020). Paradigm® REAL-Time was not before the examiner. EX1201, 1-7.
`
`Although Patel-2009 and Goldsmith were among 700 references submitted via IDS,
`
`neither was relied on or discussed by the Examiner. Hum Indus. Tech., Inc. v. Amsted
`
`Rail Co., Inc., IPR2023-00538, Paper 15 at 68-69 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2023) (finding
`
`that “Examiner's initials on an IDS citing almost 50 references” did not “indicate
`
`that the Examiner sufficiently evaluated or appreciated the relevance of either
`
`reference” and
`
`that “Petitioner’s showing of a reasonable
`
`likelihood of
`
`unpatentability … satisfies the second prong of Advanced Bionics and weighs
`
`strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution”). Moreover, Patel-
`
`2009 was submitted more than a decade into prosecution when the Examiner’s office
`
`action and allowance only considered double patenting. EX1202, 237-241. Finally,
`
`prosecution focused on U.S. Publications to Hayter and Kamath, not on the
`
`combinations and arguments in this petition. See supra III.B.
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`Even if the Examiner had evaluated the references relied on herein, the
`
`Examiner materially erred in allowing claims 13 and 29 for failing to appreciate the
`
`disclosures and teachings in those references discussed in the Grounds below, which
`
`show that the challenged claims are unpatentable and should have never been
`
`allowed. Because these key teachings in the prior art were not previously considered
`
`by the Office, this petition should not be denied under Section 325(d). Hum,
`
`IPR2023-00538, Paper 15 at 68-69.
`
`Nor does 325(d) warrant discretionary denial based on the earlier-filed
`
`petitions in IPR2023-01251 and IPR2023-01252. The present Petition challenges
`
`claims 13 and 29, which were not previously challenged using the same art or
`
`arguments. As noted above and in the concurrently-filed explanation of material
`
`differences between multiple petitions, on August 1, 2023, Petitioner filed two
`
`petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,298,056 (the ’056 patent).
`
`Petition 1 (IPR2023-01251) challenges claims 1-12, 14-28, and 30. While Petition 2
`
`(IPR2023-01252) challenged claims 13 and 29, it did so based on a challenge to the
`
`effective filing date of the challenged claims and did not rely on the art or arguments
`
`presented herein. Moreover, as institution of Petition 2 was discretionarily denied,
`
`the Office has not reached the merits of that challenge, much less in a final written
`
`decision. Thus, these other Board proceedings do not warrant Section 325(d) denial
`
`here in IPR2024-00521.
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`B.
`
`Parallel District Court Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner asserts the ’056 patent against Petitioner in the Related
`
`Litigation, with trial set for March 2026. EX1253, 14. Any IPR based on this petition
`
`would conclude well in advance of that date and thus the Board should not
`
`discretionarily deny institution in view of the district court case.
`
`C. This Petition Should Be Instituted Despite Institution On
`Different Claims Of The Same Patent In IPR2023-01251
`
`The November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) includes a
`
`section entitled, “Parallel Petitions Challenging the Same Patent.” TPG, 59-61.
`
`Contemporaneous with this petition, Petitioner files a 5-page brief explaining, inter
`
`alia: a) why institution of both this petition and the previously filed Petition 1 is
`
`warranted; b) why ranking this petition relative to Petition 1 would be inappropriate,
`
`as the present petition challenges only newly asserted claims that were not
`
`challenged in Petition 1; and (c) ranking Petition 3 second to the extent a ranking is
`
`required.
`
`D. The General Plastic Factors
`Weigh Against Discretionary Denial
`
`When serial petitions are filed against a patent, the Board evaluates seven
`
`factors to determine whether to deny institution under § 314(a). General Plastic
`
`Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16 (PTAB
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`Sept. 6, 2017) (Precedential) (“General Plastic factors”). These factors weigh against
`
`discretionary denial.
`
`First Factor: There is no overlap in challenged claims between Petition 3 and
`
`Petition 1, and thus this petition should not be considered a “follow-on” to Petition
`
`1. See Volkswagen Grp. Of Am., Inc., v. Carucel Invs., L.P., IPR2019-01573, Paper
`
`7 at 7 (PTAB Jan. 22, 2020) (second petition covering different claims is not a
`
`“follow-on petition”).
`
`While the present Petition challenges two of the same claims as previously
`
`challenged in Petition 2—which relied on a challenge to the ’056 patent’s effective
`
`filing date, and cited Patent Owner’s own previously published application as prior
`
`art to challenge all 30 claims of the ’056 patent—Petition 2 was not instituted on
`
`discretionary grounds, leaving no common claims between the present Petition and
`
`any instituted proceeding. Additionally, neither of the two claims challenged in
`
`Petition 3 have had their patentability previously considered by the Board on the
`
`merits, let alone on the prior art grounds presented herein.
`
`As such, this factor weighs against discretionary denial, or is at best neutral.
`
`Second, Fourth, and Fifth Factors: although Petitioner “knew of the prior
`
`art asserted” in this petition when Petitioner filed Petition 1, Petition 1 did not
`
`challenge claims 13 and 29. When filing Petition 1, Petitioner noted that Patent
`
`Owner was asserting “at least claim 1” but that “Patent Owner has not limited the
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`asserted claims and thus currently is presumed to assert all 30 claims.” E.g.,
`
`IPR2023-01251, Paper 2 at 4. However, given word count limits, the apparent lack
`
`of an infringement theory, and the unforeseeability of Patent Owner’s claim
`
`interpretations, Petition 1 did not challenge claims 13 and 29.
`
`Faced with guessing which claims Patent Owner might ultimately assert when
`
`Petition 1 was filed, and given the plain reading of claims 13 and 29, Petitioner
`
`reasonably did not anticipate Patent Owner asserting those claims using the apparent
`
`claim interpretations in Patent Owner’s December 20, 2023, infringement
`
`contentions. In particular, Patent Owner for the first time in these contentions
`
`apparently interprets:
`
` claim 13: “sensor misposition error” as satisfied by a signal loss; and
`
` claim 29: “secondary receiver unit …configured to receive processed
`
`sensor data
`
`from
`
`the data processing and
`
`transmitter unit” as
`
`encompassing a receiver unit indirectly receiving data from a device other
`
`than the data processing and transmitter unit, notwithstanding the direct
`
`communication shown in the ’056 patent at Fig. 1 and discussed at 5:4-8
`
`(“[a]lso shown in FIG. 1 is an optional secondary receiver unit 106 which
`
`is operatively coupled to the communication link and configured to receive
`
`data transmitted from the data processing and transmitter unit 102”).
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review Of USP 11,298,056
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00521
`Patent 11,298,056
`
`Upon first learning on December 20, 2023 that claims 13 and 29 were being
`
`asserted based on these unforeseen apparent claim interpretations, Petitioner acted
`
`diligently, and within seven weeks prepared and filed Petition 3, which is based on
`
`this newly offered interpretation from Patent Owner.
`
`Thus, factors 2, 4, and 5 weigh against discretionary denial or are at least
`
`neutral.
`
`Third Factor: While Petitioner filed Petition 3 after institution decisions were
`
`reached on Petitions 1 and 2, it had completed substantial work on Petition 3 before
`
`these decisions and filed it on the due date for the Board to issue these decisions,
`
`February 9, 2024. Most importantly, the grounds and arguments presented by
`
`Petition 3 are not informed by the Board decisions or Patent Owner arguments in the
`
`first two IPRs. Petitioner’s arguments are unchanged as to the overlapping claim
`
`elements found in claim 1, from which challenged claims 13 and 29 depend. As to
`
`those overlapping elements, Petitioner repeats without substantive modification the
`
`mapping from Ground 1 of Petition 1 and is using neither the Petition 1 POPR nor
`
`the institution decision to modify arguments that were previously unsuccessful, nor
`
`shifting its pri