throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 26026
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Documenfifii—fi: gflWB/ZO Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 26026
`
`EXHIBIT 12
`
`EXHIBIT 12
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 26027
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-00597
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 26028
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`THE FINTIV FACTORS SUPPORT INSTITUTING IPR ..................... 1
`A.
`FACTOR 1: LACK OF EVIDENCE OF STAY RENDERS THIS FACTOR
`NEUTRAL ............................................................................................ 1
`FACTOR 3: APPLE WAS DILIGENT AND HAD NO TACTICAL
`ADVANTAGE ....................................................................................... 2
`FACTOR 4: THERE IS NO ISSUE OVERLAP ............................................ 3
`FACTOR 6: APPLE’S STRONG PETITION OUTWEIGHS OTHER
`FACTORS ............................................................................................ 5
`ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDER FACTOR 6 FAVOR
`INSTITUTION ....................................................................................... 6
`II. THIS PROCEEDING AND IPR2020-00203 ARE MATERIALLY
`DIFFERENT .............................................................................................. 7
`III. THE NHK/FINTIV FRAMEWORK SHOULD BE
`OVERTURNED ......................................................................................... 8
`THE NHK/FINTIV FRAMEWORK IS LEGALLY INVALID .......................... 8
`A.
`THE NHK/FINTIV FRAMEWORK ENCOURAGES GAMESMANSHIP...........10
`B.
`IV. APPLE HAS MET ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT CASIO
`WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE; HULU DOES NOT REQUIRE
`WHAT MAXELL ARGUES IT DOES ...................................................11
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 26029
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`Apple submits this reply pursuant to the authorization of the Board to address
`
`the Fintiv factors, Maxell’s Hulu argument, as well as the material differences
`
`between this proceeding and IPR2020-00203. Ex. 1056 (Board’s Email).
`
`The POPR urges denying the petition under § 314(a) based on misapplying
`
`the Fintiv factors and unduly focusing on the time between the current trial date in
`
`the district court litigation (“Texas case”) and an expected Final Written Decision
`
`(“FWD”). Other factors favor institution, including Petitioner’s strong showing on
`
`the merits, a lack of overlap in prior art between the Petition and the Texas case, and
`
`the complexities of litigation. A balanced weighing of the factors shows that the
`
`patent system would best be served by instituting review.
`
`I.
`
`THE FINTIV FACTORS SUPPORT INSTITUTING IPR
`A.
`
`Factor 1: Lack of Evidence of Stay Renders This Factor Neutral
`
`On April 27, 2020, the Texas Court denied Apple’s request for a stay without
`
`prejudice to re-filing the motion. Ex. 1052. The Board, “in the absence of specific
`
`evidence, [] will not attempt to predict how the district court in the related district
`
`court litigation will proceed because the court may determine whether or not to stay
`
`any individual case, including the related one, based on a variety of circumstances
`
`and facts beyond [its] control and to which the Board is not privy.” Sand Revolution
`
`II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper
`
`24 at 7 (June 16, 2020) (Informative). Thus, this factor is neutral.
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 26030
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`
`B.
`
`Factor 3: Apple Was Diligent And Had No Tactical Advantage
`
`It is not the case that Apple “purposefully chose to delay filing its petition,”
`
`(POPR at 21) and any suggestion that some tactical purpose drove its timing is
`
`without merit. Indeed, Maxell was the one that gained a tactical advantage by placing
`
`an undue burden on Apple’s IPR preparation from asserting 90 claims for 10 patents
`
`early in the litigation (Ex. 1057 at 2) and only narrowing them after the bar date.
`
`Maxell originally asserted ‘493 Patent claims 1, 3-6, 10 and 11 in the
`
`litigation. Id. Claim 1 includes a narrow limitation not found in any other
`
`independent claims. Specifically, claim 1 requires that “N is equal to or greater than
`
`three times a number of effective scanning lines M.” Ex. 1001 at 17. This forced
`
`Apple to search for this narrow limitation in the prior art—a search that extended to
`
`October 2019. Apple then needed more time to locate witnesses and documentary
`
`proof to establish public availability. Petition, 10-12. But on the eve of the bar date,
`
`Maxell reduced its asserted claims to only claims 5 and 6, neither of which include
`
`the narrow limitation of claim 1. Ex. 1053. Had Maxell not forced Apple to search
`
`for the narrow concept in Claim 1, this petition would have been filed much earlier.
`
`And, in order to avoid burdening the Board with multiple petitions, Apple carefully
`
`sought to locate and narrow its prior art selection such that it could file a single
`
`petition challenging the asserted claims of the ‘493 Patent. See Med-El Elek. Geräte
`
`GES.M.B.H v. Advanced Bionics AG, IPR2020-00190, Paper 15 at 13-14 (June 3,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 26031
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`2020); see also Apple v. Maxell, IPR2020-0020, Paper 11 at 20 (“Petitioner’s
`
`explanation is consistent with the AIA’s legislative history as to the one-year
`
`statutory bar under § 315(b).”) (July 15, 2020). It is disingenuous to suggest Apple
`
`delayed its filing for a strategic advantage when it was Maxell who strategically
`
`benefited from dropping claim 1 at the IPR bar date. Thus, this factor favors Apple.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 4: There Is No Issue Overlap
`
`This factor strongly favors Apple because the subject matter that the Board
`
`will consider does not overlap with the litigation. First, Maxell cannot dispute that
`
`Apple seeks IPR on wholly different grounds of invalidity here than it does in the
`
`Texas Case, as outlined below. Ex. 1047 (Apple’s Final Election of Prior Art):
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`Unique Issues
`
`-- Is the Sony MVC system
`prior art?
`-- Does the Sony MVC
`anticipate and teach mixing
`and culling?
`
`-- Is the Casio manual a
`printed publication?
`-- Does Juen disclose
`mixing and culling?
`
`
`
`Texas
`Case
`
`Juen + Anderson
`Juen + Anderson + Misawa
`Sony MVC-FD83/FD88
`Sony MVC + Misawa
`
`5
`6
`5
`6
`
`IPR
`
`Casio + Juen
`Casio + Juen + Takase
`Casio + Juen + Misawa
`
`1, 3, 5, 10
`4
`6, 11
`
`
`Second, as noted above, claim 1 has a materially different scope from the other
`
`claims. This material difference in the proceedings will not be one addressed in the
`
`Texas Case. In addition, the IPR presents unique issues relating to the mixing and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 26032
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`culling limitation: “signal processing unit generates the image signals by using pixel
`
`lines that have been mixed or culled from the N number of vertically arranged pixel
`
`lines.” Ex. 1001, claim 5. For this limitation, the IPR relies on Juen’s teaching of
`
`mixing and culling. Petition at 40-43. In the litigation, only the Sony system is used
`
`for teaching this limitation. Ex. 1058 at 74-78 (Apple’s Expert Report on ‘439
`
`Invalidity). Misawa, when used in combination with Sony, is only used to teach the
`
`image instability detector of claim 6. Id, at 82-88.
`
`Third, Maxell’s broad contention that Casio and Sony are “the same” ignores
`
`the basic fact that these are two different cameras from two different manufacturers.
`
`Of course they disclose similar technology because they both show that the claim
`
`limitations are unpatentable. But they invalidate these limitations in different ways,
`
`with different teachings, and different motivations to combine. The Casio reference
`
`is a printed publication limited to a user manual. But in the litigation, Apple relies
`
`on the Sony device itself and a supporting body of evidence outlining the operation
`
`of that device that includes the printed manual, a service manual, advertisements,
`
`microscopic images of the sensors, tear down testing, Sony’s employees, and other
`
`evidence that is unavailable in the IPR. Id. at 53-82. As such, “to a trier of fact, the
`
`consideration of [Sony] is different than the consideration of [Casio] because each
`
`reference is unique and requires the trier of fact to understand each reference’s
`
`distinctive disclosures so that the trier of fact can determine what is, or is not,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 26033
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`disclosed and decide whether the references teach, or do not teach, what is required
`
`by the claims.” Apple v. Maxell, IPR2020-00200, Paper 11 at 22 (July 15, 2020).
`
`Fourth, Maxell has filed a summary judgment motion in the litigation seeking
`
`to prevent the jury from hearing the merits of the Sony camera (while arguing to this
`
`Board that the same issues will be heard by the district court). Maxell’s motion is
`
`premised entirely on an alleged failure of proof, not on the merits. Ex. 1060 at 1. The
`
`Court will be examining issues completely disassociated from the IPR such as the
`
`existence of sales receipts and chain of title for the Sony camera. The court will
`
`analyze this evidence under the clear and convincing standard. Id. at 2 (citing cases).
`
`As such, any ruling by the Court will not present a conflicting opinion because the
`
`Board will analyze different evidence under a different standard—reasonable
`
`likelihood of success. Hulu, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 7.
`
`Finally, because Apple has eliminated the chance of inconsistent findings by
`
`presenting different grounds to the PTAB than in the Texas Case, there is no risk of
`
`duplicative efforts. See Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.–Trucking
`
`LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, 11-12 (June 16, 2020); Apple Inc. v. Seven
`
`Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 at 12-19 (June 15, 2020).
`
`D.
`
`Factor 6: Apple’s Strong Petition Outweighs Other Factors
`
`This factor favors Apple because its strong showing on the merits outweighs
`
`the other factors. See Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00156, Paper 10
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 26034
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`at 20-22. For example, Maxell’s POPR does not challenge whether Casio discloses
`
`claim 1’s “N is equal to or greater than … [three] M” limitation. Also, Apple has
`
`presented Juen for its teachings on mixing/culling and Maxell devotes nearly all of
`
`its arguments to attacking Casio and ignores Juen for this limitation. And, as noted
`
`below, Maxell’s arguments against Casio as prior art are factually unsupported.
`
`E. Additional Considerations under Factor 6 Favor Institution
`
`Maxell also fails to present other key factors that weigh in favor of institution.
`
`First, addressing the invalidity of the ‘493 patent in IPR serves the public interest
`
`because Maxell has asserted this patent against multiple defendants. Petition at 7.
`
`Second, the Board is well suited to address the complex technical subject
`
`matter, such as how Casio’s CCD displays and arranges its pixels. Presenting this
`
`subject matter to a jury poses a number of challenging issues, especially with a total
`
`of 10 asserted patents to try in just a short one-week trial. Within that context, the
`
`‘439 patent’s validity is likely to occupy only one hour of trial. Instituting the IPR
`
`“avoids potentially complicated and overlapping jury issues of ten patents, while
`
`allowing the panel to focus on multiple issues in depth that only involve the ‘439
`
`patent. Therefore, this IPR trial will provide the parties with an in-depth analysis of
`
`the ‘439 patent, providing a full record that will enhance the integrity of the patent
`
`system.” Seven Networks, IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 at 22.
`
`Finally, the uncertainties created by the COVID-19 pandemic counsel in
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 26035
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`
`favor of institution. Texas has recently experienced a significant increase in COVID-
`
`19 cases. Ex. 1059. The likelihood of a jury commencing at the scheduled time
`
`remains in doubt, while the Board, by contrast, has continued to hold hearings. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1061 (W.D.Tex. General Order canceling trials); Ex. 1062 at Docket Nos.
`
`301 and 293 (MV3 Partners v. Roku, Docket Sheet) (transcripts unavailable for 90
`
`days); Ex. 1063 (N.D.Ill. General Order canceling trials).
`
`II. THIS PROCEEDING AND IPR2020-00203 ARE MATERIALLY
`DIFFERENT
`
`The Board invited Apple to brief “what, if any, material differences exist
`
`between the facts presented in this case and those presented in the related IPR2020-
`
`00203 matter.” Ex. 1056. Fundamental, material differences exist between these
`
`proceedings, the most important of which is the lack of overlap.
`
`In the ‘00203 matter, Apple used the following references in the IPR and the
`
`Texas Case (IPR2020-00203, Paper 9-10, at 9 and Ex. 1047):
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`IPR
`
`Waldroup + Nakayama
`
`
`In the ‘00203 matter, that panel found that “both of the references relied on in
`
`the Petition are asserted in the underlying litigation” and that “the assertion of
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2020-00203
`
`Texas Case
`
`Mucke + Nakayama
`Waldroup + Mucke
`
`1, 6
`
`1, 6, 7
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 26036
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`Waldroup and Nakayama in both proceedings may result in duplication of work and
`
`create the potential for inconsistent decisions.” Paper 12, 14.
`
`Setting aside whether the Board’s analysis was correct, no concern of overlap
`
`and duplication of work exists in this proceeding. The main issues in this proceeding
`
`rest almost exclusively on the disclosures of the Casio reference, which is not
`
`asserted as prior art in the Texas Case. Supra Section I.C.
`
`This case, instead, aligns more closely with the recently issued decision in
`
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2020-00200, Paper 11 (July 15, 2020). In the ‘00200
`
`proceeding, the Board found that despite overlap of the primary references between
`
`the two proceedings (a fact not present here), the different scope of the challenged
`
`claims in the IPR and the material differences between the secondary references
`
`presented unique issues warranting institution. Id. at 15-22.
`
`III. THE NHK/FINTIV FRAMEWORK SHOULD BE OVERTURNED
`A.
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Is Legally Invalid
`
`The NHK/Fintiv framework is legally invalid for three primary reasons. First,
`
`the PTO lacks authority to deny institution based on non-statutory factors. The AIA
`
`establishes the conditions that must be satisfied to institute IPR, e.g., 35 U.S.C.
`
`§311(c)(1), (2); §312(a)(1)-(5); §314(a); §315(a)(1), (b), and the conditions under
`
`which IPR may nonetheless not be instituted, e.g., §325(d); Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`
`§6(c)(2)(B). “In light of Congress’s special care in drawing so precise a statutory
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 26037
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`scheme,” it is “improper” to consider non-statutory factors. University of Texas Sw.
`
`Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 356 (2013).
`
`The AIA further precludes the PTO from denying institution based on non-
`
`statutory efficiency considerations because Congress already specified how parallel
`
`litigation should be accounted for. §311(c)(2); §315; §325(d). Congress granted the
`
`PTO discretion to decide how to manage IPR when there is a parallel proceeding
`
`before the PTO, §315(d), but permitted “overlap” between IPR and parallel
`
`litigation, §301(a), (d); §315(e)(2). “It would have made little sense for Congress to
`
`insist on” such rules if the Director could deny institution for his own efficiency
`
`reasons. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018).
`
`Moreover, the NHK/Fintiv framework contravenes Congress’s judgment to
`
`allow IPR if filed within one year of the commencement of parallel infringement
`
`litigation. §315(b); cf. §315(a)(1). Congress crafted that limit “to minimize”—not
`
`eliminate—overlap between IPR and litigation. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs.,
`
`LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, 1374-1375 (2020). Statutory limitations on filing inherently
`
`“take[] account of delay,” and therefore other “case-specific circumstances”—like
`
`the NHK-Fintiv factors—“cannot be invoked to preclude adjudication of a claim …
`
`brought within the [statutory] window.” Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`
`572 U.S. 663, 667, 677-680, 685 (2014).
`
`The NHK/Fintiv framework is also arbitrary and capricious. The factors
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 26038
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`require speculation about the likely course of parallel litigation, which will produce
`
`irrational and unfair outcomes. And if trial is rescheduled after a non-institution
`
`decision, as often happens, an IPR petitioner will have lost any avenue for
`
`expeditious resolution of patent validity. These unpredictable risks will undermine
`
`the PTO’s efficiency goal by incentivizing accused infringers to splinter issues and
`
`petition for IPR prematurely. See 157 Cong. Rec. S5430 (Sept. 8, 2011).
`
`Finally, the NHK/Fintiv framework is invalid because it is a substantive rule
`
`that was adopted without public notice and comment. “[T]he Director has no
`
`substantive rule making authority with respect to interpretations of the Patent Act.”
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 953 F.3d 1313, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020) (additional views of Prost, C.J., Plager, & O’Malley, JJ.). And although
`
`agencies “must use notice-and-comment procedures” when adopting substantive
`
`rules, Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2420 (2019), the Director designated NHK
`
`and Fintiv as precedential (i.e., a binding rule) without such procedures.
`
`B.
`
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Encourages Gamesmanship
`
`The NHK/Fintiv framework is also bad policy because it encourages
`
`inefficient gamesmanship. The framework will induce plaintiffs to sue in fast-
`
`moving districts in hopes of setting trial before the FWD. It will encourage plaintiffs
`
`to hide important claims early in litigation to delay the filing of IPR petitions. And
`
`it may cause plaintiffs to assert many patents in their complaint to increase the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 26039
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`“overlap” with an IPR petition, only then to withdraw a patent from the lawsuit once
`
`institution of IPR has been denied. Accused infringers may respond by quickly filing
`
`petitions on more patents and claims without fully understanding the infringement
`
`allegations against them. And the pressure to act immediately will diverts efforts
`
`from alternative dispute resolution.
`
`IV. APPLE HAS MET ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT CASIO WAS
`PUBLICLY AVAILABLE; HULU DOES NOT REQUIRE APPE
`SHOW COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN CASIO AND ETCHELLS
`
`In its POPR, Maxell argues Mr. Etchells declaration is insufficient to establish
`
`the Casio manual as prior art. Maxell’s argument, however, is premised on a faulty
`
`premise. Specifically, Maxell argues that “Apple provides no evidence of any
`
`communication from Casio Mr. Etchells.” POPR, 39. Maxell cites to the precedential
`
`Hulu decision, suggesting the law requires Apple to establish the existence of such
`
`communications. It does not.
`
`In Hulu, the Board emphasized that the question of whether a reference is a
`
`printed publication is not a heightened standard at institution. Instead, the question
`
`is “whether the information in the petition and in any response “shows that there is
`
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`
`the claims challenged in the petition.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`
`IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 7 (Dec. 20, 2019); 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Moreover, in
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 26040
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`determining whether “[a] given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ [depends] upon a
`
`satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made
`
`available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject
`
`matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Id. at 10-11. Notably
`
`absent from the Board’s analysis in Hulu (or any other case) is a requirement that
`
`the petitioner establish communications between the persons interested and
`
`ordinarily skilled in the art and the publisher of the given reference. As noted above,
`
`at institution, the question is simply one of whether the petitioner has established a
`
`“reasonable likelihood.” Thus, Maxell is incorrect that Apple must establish
`
`communications between Casio and Mr. Etchells under Hulu to meet its burden of
`
`establishing public availability.
`
`When the proper legal standard is considered, it is clear Maxell’s argument
`
`against Mr. Etchells is simply one of disagreement with his factual statements.
`
`Maxell faults Apple for allegedly providing no evidence of communication between
`
`Mr. Etchells and Casio, but Maxell ignores Mr. Etchells’ express statement in his
`
`declaration that “I reached out to Casio requesting the QV8000SX digital Camera.”
`
`Ex. 1007, 3. If Maxell believes Mr. Etchells is not being truthful, then Maxell is fully
`
`entitled to take Mr. Etchells deposition after institution. But the answer is not denial
`
`of institution based on an incorrect legal standard and the lack of any contrary
`
`evidence from Maxell.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 26041
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY: /s/ Adam P. Seitz
`
`
`Jennifer C. Bailey, Reg. No. 52,583
`
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`Paul R. Hart, Reg. No. 59,646
`
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 26042
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493 (“’493 Patent”)
`Exhibit 1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493 (“File History for ’493
`Patent”)
`Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez Dec.”)
`(including Appendix A)
`Exhibit 1004 Casio LCD Digital Camera QV-8000SX User’s Guide (“Casio”)
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,903,162 to Juen (“Juen”)
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,502,483 to Takase, et al. (“Takase”)
`Exhibit 1007 Declaration of David Etchells (“Etchells Dec.”) (including
`Appendices A-I)
`Exhibit 1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,444,482 to Misawa, et al. (“Misawa”)
`Exhibit 1009 Docket Control Order, Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc, No. 5:19-cv-
`0036-RWS (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2019), ECF No. 46
`Exhibit 1010 Complaint for Patent Infringement, Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc, No.
`5:19-cv-0036-RWS (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2019), ECF No. 1
`Exhibit 1011 P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`(Docket No. 99), from Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 5:19-cv-00036-
`RWS (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2019)
`Exhibit 1012 U.S. Patent No. 4,949,117 to Heyningen (“Heyningen”)
`Exhibit 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,150,109 to Berry (“Berry”)
`Exhibit 1014 U.S. Patent No. 6,335,760 to Sato (“Sato”)
`Exhibit 1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,642,171 to Baumgartner (“Baumgartner”)
`Exhibit 1016 CCD Arrays, Cameras, and Displays, 2d. Ed. (JCD Publ. 1998)
`(“CCD Arrays”)
`Exhibit 1017 U.S. Patent No. 4,740,828 to Kinoshita (“Kinoshita”)
`Exhibit 1018 U.S. Patent No. 6,018,363 to Horii (“Horii”)
`Exhibit 1019 EP 0 802 688 B1 to Inoue (“Inoue”)
`Exhibit 1020 U.S. Patent No. 6,512,541 to Dunton (“Dunton”)
`Exhibit 1021 U.S. Patent No. 6,563,535 to Anderson (“Anderson”)
`Exhibit 1022 U.S. Patent No. 4,612,575 to Ishman (“Ishman”)
`Exhibit 1023 File History for U.S. Application Serial No. 15/959,774
`Exhibit 1024 File History for U.S. Application Serial No. 15/386,656
`Exhibit 1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,067,071 to Kotha (“Kotha”)
`Exhibit 1026 Declaration of Edward Lang (“Lang Dec.”)
`Exhibit 1027 Declaration of Grace Siller (“Siller Dec.”) (including Ex. A)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 26043
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`
`Exhibit 1028 Declaration of Susan VanderSchans (“VanderSchans Dec.”)
`(including Ex. A)
`Exhibit 1029 VHS Camcoder with Electronic Image Stabilizer, Ohima, et al.,
`IEEE Trans, on CE, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov. 1989), pp. 749-757
`Exhibit 1030
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1031
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1032
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1033
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1034
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1035
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1036
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1037
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1038
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1039
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1040
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1041
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1042
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1043
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1044
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1045
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1046
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1047 Apple's Final Election of Prior Art
`Exhibit 1048
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1049
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1050
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1051
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1052 Order Denying Motion to Stay Without Prejudice
`Exhibit 1053 Maxell’s Final Election of Asserted Claims
`Exhibit 1054
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1055
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Exhibit 1056 Board’s Email Authorizing Reply
`Exhibit 1057 Maxell’s June 12, 2019, Infringement Contentions
`Exhibit 1058 Apple’s Expert Report on Invalidity for the ’493 Patent
`Exhibit 1059 New Report on COVID-19 Cases in Texas
`Exhibit 1060 Maxell’s Summary Judgment Motion on the ’493 Patent
`Exhibit 1061 W.D.Tex. Order Canceling Trials Due to Pandemic
`Exhibit 1062 MV3 v. Roku – Docket Sheet Showing Delayed Trial Due to
`Pandemic
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 26044
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`
`Exhibit 1063 N.D.Ill. Order Canceling Trials Due to Pandemic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 477-2 Filed 08/03/20 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 26045
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00597
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on July 20, 2020
`
`the foregoing Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Preliminary Reply was served via electronic
`
`filing with the Board and via Electronic Mail on the following practitioners of record
`
`for Patent Owner:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert G. Pluta (rpluta@mayerbrown.com)
`Maxell-Apple-Service@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Adam P. Seitz
`
`
`
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`17
`
`

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