throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 69 PageID #: 28097
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MARK D. SELWYN (CA SBN 244180)
`mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
`
`CATHERINE M.A. CARROLL*
`catherine.carroll@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Apple Inc., Cisco
`Systems, Inc., and Intel Corporation
`
`* Pro hac vice application forthcoming
`
`DANIEL T. SHVODIAN (CA SBN 184576)
`DShvodian@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 838-4300
`Facsimile: (650) 737-5461
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff Google LLC
`
`A complete list of parties and counsel appears
`on the signature page per Local Rule 3-4(a)(1)
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No.:
`
`5:20-cv-6128
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Administrative Procedure Act Case
`
`APPLE INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`GOOGLE LLC, and INTEL CORPORATION,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`ANDREI IANCU, in his official capacity as
`Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
`Property and Director, United States Patent and
`Trademark Office,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 69 PageID #: 28098
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) challenges a rule
`1.
`adopted by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) governing that agency’s
`consideration of petitions to institute inter partes review (“IPR”)—an administrative proceeding for
`determining the patentability of previously issued patent claims.
`A strong patent system is vital to protecting the massive research and development
`2.
`investments that fuel Plaintiffs’ innovative products and services. And a crucial element of any
`strong patent system is a mechanism for “weeding out” weak patents that never should have been
`granted because the claimed invention was not novel or would have been obvious in light of prior art.
`Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, 1374 (2020). Such patents threaten
`innovation—particularly in the hands of non-practicing entities that use the patent system not to spur
`their own inventions, but to extract monetary returns by asserting weak patents in infringement suits.
`As frequent targets of such tactics, Plaintiffs have a strong interest in having an efficient and
`accessible means for challenging weak patents that should never have issued to ensure that such
`patents cannot hamper innovation.
`IPR was a centerpiece of Congress’s efforts to strengthen the U.S. patent system in the
`3.
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). In enacting the AIA in 2011, Congress recognized that
`innovation is inhibited when invalid patents are issued and then deployed in litigation against
`technology inventors and developers. And Congress found existing procedures for challenging
`already-issued patents, including litigation, to be insufficient to protect the patent system. Congress
`accordingly created IPR to provide a more efficient and streamlined administrative alternative to
`litigation for determining patentability before specialized patent judges. IPR has served to enhance
`the U.S. patent system and strengthen U.S. technology and innovation by weeding out thousands of
`invalid patent claims.
`To ensure that IPR fulfills its purpose as a superior alternative to litigation over patent
`4.
`validity, the AIA specifically contemplates that IPR will be available to determine the patentability of
`patent claims that are also the subject of pending patent infringement litigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 3 of 69 PageID #: 28099
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`
`In the agency action challenged in this suit (referred to here as the “NHK-Fintiv rule”),
`5.
`however, the Director determined that the PTO could deny a petition for IPR based on a balancing of
`discretionary factors relating to the pendency of parallel patent infringement litigation—factors that
`appear nowhere in the AIA. The agency’s application of that rule has dramatically reduced the
`availability of IPR, regardless of the weakness of the patent claims being challenged, thereby
`undermining IPR’s central role in protecting a strong patent system.
`The NHK-Fintiv rule violates the AIA, which allows IPR to proceed in tandem with
`6.
`infringement litigation involving the same patent claims so long as the IPR petition is filed within one
`year after the petitioner was served with the complaint in the infringement suit. Congress dictated in
`the AIA exactly when litigation should take precedence over IPR and vice versa, and the NHK-Fintiv
`rule contravenes Congress’s judgment. Indeed, the NHK-Fintiv rule defeats the purpose of IPR,
`which is to provide a streamlined and specialized mechanism for clearing away invalid patents that
`never should have issued, and to do so without the substantial costs, burdens, and delays of litigation.
`The NHK-Fintiv rule is also arbitrary and capricious because its vague factors lead to
`7.
`speculative, unpredictable, and unfair outcomes and will not advance the agency’s stated goal of
`promoting administrative efficiency.
`Finally, even if it were not contrary to law, the NHK-Fintiv rule is procedurally invalid
`8.
`because it was not adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Both the APA and the AIA
`obligated the Director to follow that procedure, yet the Director instead propounded the NHK-Fintiv
`rule through an internal process within the PTO for establishing binding rules by designating select
`decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as “precedential”—a process that provides for no
`opportunity for or consideration of public input.
`The Court should therefore declare the NHK-Fintiv rule unlawful and set it aside under
`9.
`the APA. The Court should further permanently enjoin the Director from applying the rule or the
`non-statutory factors it incorporates to deny institution of IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 4 of 69 PageID #: 28100
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This case arises under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et
`10.
`seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702, Defendant has waived sovereign immunity for purposes of
`11.
`this suit.
`Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C.
`12.
`§§ 2201 and 2202, by 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-706, by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65, and by
`the inherent equitable powers of this Court.
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C. § 703 because
`13.
`at least one Plaintiff maintains its headquarters in this District.
`The NHK-Fintiv rule is final agency action subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C.
`14.
`
`§ 704.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`This action arises in the San Jose Division because a substantial part of the events
`15.
`giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Santa Clara County, California, where all Plaintiffs
`maintain their headquarters.
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is a California corporation having its principal place of
`16.
`business at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California, 95014.
`Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) is a California corporation having its principal
`17.
`place of business at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, California, 95134.
`Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”) is a Delaware limited liability company having its
`18.
`principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California, 94043.
`Plaintiff Intel Corporation (“Intel”) is a Delaware corporation having its principal
`19.
`place of business at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California, 95054.
`Defendant Andrei Iancu is the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
`20.
`and Director of the PTO. The Director oversees the operations of the PTO and is statutorily vested
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 5 of 69 PageID #: 28101
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`with the authority to decide whether to institute IPR of a patent claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314. Defendant
`Iancu is being sued in his official capacity. His principal place of business is in Alexandria, Virginia.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`The Patent System
`“To promote the progress of science and useful arts,” the Constitution empowers
`21.
`Congress to “secur[e] for limited times to … inventors the exclusive right to their … discoveries.”
`U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8. The U.S. patent system has long fueled American economic growth and
`innovation. Plaintiffs each strongly support and rely on a strong patent system that lends robust legal
`protection to meritorious patent claims.
`Apple is an American success story and developer of iconic consumer devices and
`22.
`software that have transformed the American economy. With more than 90,000 employees in the
`United States, Apple is one of the country’s largest employers in the high-technology business sector.
`Overall, Apple supports 2.4 million jobs in all 50 states. Last year, Apple spent over $60 billion with
`more than 9,000 domestic suppliers across the country, including at manufacturing locations in 36
`states. Apple invests billions of dollars annually in U.S. research and development, and it owns more
`than 22,000 U.S. patents that protect that investment.
`Cisco is an American and worldwide leader in information technology, networking,
`23.
`communications, and cybersecurity solutions. Cisco is a strong supporter of the U.S. patent system,
`owning more than 16,000 U.S. patents, which protect more than $6 billion in annual spending on
`research and development. Cisco’s 20,000 worldwide engineers constantly invent new ways to better
`connect the world. As a result of its commitment to innovation and intellectual property, Cisco files
`more than 700 patent applications each year seeking protection for those inventions.
`Google is a diversified American technology company whose mission is to organize
`24.
`the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. Google offers leading web-
`based products and services that are used daily around the world. With over 100,000 employees,
`Google invests over $20 billion annually to invent and develop its products and services, and it relies
`on a strong and balanced patent system to protect them—owning more than 25,000 U.S. patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 6 of 69 PageID #: 28102
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Intel is a global leader in the design and manufacture of semiconductor products,
`25.
`including hardware and software products for networking, telecommunications, cloud computing,
`artificial intelligence, autonomous driving, and other applications. Intel’s chips power a large
`percentage of the world’s computers, from home-office desktops and laptops to the servers that
`support the digital economy. To develop and improve these products, Intel makes significant
`investments. Intel currently has more than 42,000 employees actively engaged in research and
`development worldwide; in the United States, Intel employs more than 52,000 workers. In 2019
`alone, Intel spent more than $13 billion on research and development and more than $16 billion on
`manufacturing. These investments are protected by more than 25,000 U.S. patents, with more than
`10,000 U.S. patent applications pending.
`Each Plaintiff’s success in developing transformative, cutting-edge technologies
`26.
`depends on a patent system that provides strong legal protections for meritorious patents while
`ensuring that weak patents cannot be exploited in litigation to inhibit innovation.
`Inter Partes Review
`The U.S. patent laws have long provided both administrative and judicial paths for
`27.
`challenging the validity of patent claims after a patent has been issued. By 2011, however, Congress
`rightly perceived a “growing sense that questionable patents [we]re too easily obtained” and “too
`difficult to challenge” through existing procedures. H.R. Rep. No. 98, at 39-40, 112th Cong., 1st
`Sess. (2011) (“House Report”). Congress responded by creating IPR in the AIA to strengthen the
`patent system. Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 6(a), 125 Stat. 284, 299 (2011).
`As a centerpiece of the AIA, IPR provides “an administrative process in which a
`28.
`patent challenger may ask the [PTO] to reconsider the validity of earlier granted patent claims.”
`Thryv, 140 S. Ct. at 1370; see 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. Congress intended IPR to provide an improved
`alternative to litigation over the validity of previously granted patents by “establish[ing] a more
`efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and
`counterproductive litigation costs.” House Report at 39-40.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 7 of 69 PageID #: 28103
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Several features of IPR make it advantageous compared to litigation for determining
`29.
`whether an issued patent’s claims are patentable. IPR is conducted by the expert patent judges of the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), who are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and must
`be “persons of competent legal knowledge and scientific ability.” 35 U.S.C. § 6(a), (c). In contrast,
`patent validity disputes in court are resolved by lay jurors who need not have—and often lack—any
`specialized technical experience relevant to the patent claims at issue. Moreover, unlike jury trials,
`which typically end in general verdicts, IPR ends with the Board’s “final written decision,” id.
`§ 318(a), which enables more informed appellate review. And while bad patents can be held
`unpatentable in IPR by a preponderance of the evidence, id. § 316(e), those same patents will survive
`litigation unless the challenger proves invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, see Microsoft
`Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91 (2011).
`IPR is also more streamlined and efficient than litigation. An IPR petitioner may
`30.
`challenge a claim’s patentability only on limited grounds. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). The scope of
`discovery in IPR proceedings is more limited than in civil litigation. See id. § 316(a)(5); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.51. The AIA also limits how long the Director may take to decide whether to institute IPR, 35
`U.S.C. § 314(b), and, if IPR is instituted, how long the Board may take to issue its final decision on
`patentability, id. § 316(a)(11). As a result, the life-span of an IPR from the filing of a petition to a
`final written decision is typically only 18 months. See id. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.107.
`The Availability Of IPR In Parallel With Infringement Actions
`Given its purpose to provide an efficient alternative to litigation, Congress expected
`31.
`that IPR would often proceed in parallel with litigation in which the validity of the same patent
`claims is at issue—particularly in cases where a defendant accused of patent infringement in a lawsuit
`seeks to challenge the asserted patent claims through IPR. Several provisions of the AIA reflect that
`expectation and govern the interaction between IPR and litigation.
`The AIA permits a party accused of infringement to file a petition for IPR with regard
`32.
`to the same patent claims that are being asserted in the pending infringement suit, so long as the
`petition is filed within “1 year after the date on which the petitioner … is served with a complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 8 of 69 PageID #: 28104
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`alleging infringement of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). And although the AIA forecloses IPR if
`the petitioner has previously “filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent,” id.
`§ 315(a)(1), it expressly permits a petitioner to assert invalidity arguments in a counterclaim in
`litigation without forgoing IPR, id. § 315(a)(3).
`The AIA also removed statutory provisions that previously restricted the PTO’s
`33.
`review of patent claims that had been the subject of a challenge to the patent’s validity in district
`court. Before the creation of IPR, parties could challenge issued patents pursuant to an administrative
`procedure known as inter partes reexamination, but no such review could be maintained if a court
`entered “a final decision” concluding that the petitioner “ha[d] not sustained its burden of proving the
`invalidity” of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) (2006). The AIA eliminated that rule and imposed no
`similar limitation on IPR, which replaced inter partes reexamination.
`Apart from the one-year deadline in § 315(b), and the prohibition in § 315(a)(1) on
`34.
`filing an IPR petition after filing a suit challenging patent validity, no provision in the AIA expressly
`requires or even permits the Director (or the Board as his delegee) to deny IPR petitions based on
`pending litigation involving the same patent claims.
`The NHK And Fintiv Decisions
`The AIA specifies several requirements that must be met for the Director of the PTO
`35.
`to grant a petition for, or “institute,” IPR, and enumerates discretionary grounds on which the
`Director may decline to institute IPR even if those preconditions are met. E.g., 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311(c)(1)-(2), 312(a)(1)-(5), 315(a)(1)-(2). For example, the Director “may not” institute IPR
`“unless” he determines, based on the IPR petition, that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Id.
`§ 314(a). And the Director “may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request
`because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the
`[Patent] Office.” Id. § 325(d).
`The Director has delegated to the Board the authority to decide whether to institute
`36.
`IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a); see id. §§ 42.2, 42.108.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 9 of 69 PageID #: 28105
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`
`In two recent decisions, the Board articulated an additional standard, found nowhere in
`37.
`the AIA, under which the Board may decline to institute IPR based on the pendency of litigation over
`the validity of the same patent claims—even if the petition was timely filed within the one-year
`deadline set by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`In NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., the Board declared that “the
`38.
`advanced state of [a parallel] district court proceeding … weighs in favor of denying the [IPR]
`Petition under § 314(a).” No. IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, at 20 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) (attached
`hereto as Ex. A; also available at 2018 WL 4373643).
`The Board explained in NHK that because a pending infringement lawsuit involving
`39.
`“the same prior art and arguments” as the IPR petition was “nearing its final stages,” with trial “set to
`begin” about six months before the IPR would end, IPR “would not be consistent with an objective of
`the AIA … to provide an effective and efficient alternative to district court litigation.” NHK, Paper 8
`at 20 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`In Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., the Board elaborated on NHK, explaining how it would
`40.
`consider the pendency of a parallel infringement lawsuit when deciding whether to institute IPR. No.
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (attached hereto as Ex. B; also available at 2020
`WL 2126495). The Board declared it would “weigh[]” various “non-dispositive factors” to decide
`whether to institute IPR when parallel litigation is pending “as part of a balanced assessment of all
`relevant circumstances of the case, including the merits,” to promote “system efficiency, fairness, and
`patent quality.” Id. at 5 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`Accordingly, the Board enumerated six such “factors,” none of which appears in the
`41.
`
`AIA:
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be
`granted if [an IPR] proceeding is instituted;
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision;
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties;
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 10 of 69 PageID #: 28106
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are
`the same party; and
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion,
`including the merits.
`Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5-6.
`Although the Board offered general guidance on how it might apply some of these
`42.
`factors, the Fintiv decision did not clearly “instruct [the Board] how to weigh the factors.” Cisco
`Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd., No. IPR2020-00122, 2020 WL 2511246, at *5 (P.T.A.B.
`May 15, 2020) (Crumbley, APJ, dissenting).
`Designation Of The Board’s Decisions As Precedential
`“[B]y default,” the Board’s decisions in IPR proceedings have no precedential force in
`43.
`future cases. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Rev. 10) (“SOP-2”), at
`3, 8-9 (Sept. 20, 2018).
`The PTO, however, has established a procedure for designating select Board decisions
`44.
`as “precedential.” SOP-2 at 1-2, 8-12. Decisions designated as precedential are “binding” on the
`Board “in subsequent matters involving similar factors or issues.” SOP-2 at 11.
`Under this procedure, the Director decides whether to designate a Board decision as
`45.
`precedential. SOP-2 at 11.
`Although members of the public (in addition to members of the Board) may nominate
`46.
`a Board decision for designation as precedential, SOP-2 at 9, the designation procedure otherwise
`does not allow for public notice of, or any opportunity for public comment on, whether a Board
`decision should be designated as precedential. SOP-2 at 8-11.
`The Director designated NHK as precedential on May 7, 2019.
`47.
`48.
`The Director designated Fintiv as precedential on May 5, 2020.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 11 of 69 PageID #: 28107
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`By designating these decisions as precedential, the Director propounded a rule (the
`49.
`“NHK-Fintiv rule”) that the Board is legally bound to apply in all its institution decisions.
`The Director adopted the NHK-Fintiv rule without notice-and-comment rulemaking.
`50.
`51.
`Having been established as a binding rule through the designation of the NHK and
`Fintiv decisions as precedential, the NHK-Fintiv rule constitutes final agency action.
`The Board’s Application Of The NHK-Fintiv Rule
`The Board has applied the NHK-Fintiv rule to deny institution of numerous IPR
`52.
`proceedings, including many petitions brought by Plaintiffs.
`Following NHK, the Board relied on that decision to deny several IPR petitions. See
`53.
`Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Evalve, Inc., No. IPR2019-01546, 2020 WL 1486766 (P.T.A.B. Mar.
`19, 2020); Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Evalve, Inc., No. IPR2019-01479, 2020 WL 927867
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2020); Magellan Midstream Partners L.P. v. Sunoco Partners Marketing &
`Terminals L.P., No. IPR2019-01445, 2020 WL 373335 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2020); Next Caller Inc. v.
`TRUSTID, Inc., No. IPR2019-00962, 2019 WL 5232627 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019); Next Caller Inc. v.
`TRUSTID, Inc., No. IPR2019-00961, 2019 WL 5232627 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019).
`For example, on March 27, 2020, the Board denied institution in Google LLC v.
`54.
`Uniloc 2017, LLC, No. IPR2020-00115, 2020 WL 1523248 (Mar. 27, 2020). Although Google
`timely filed the IPR petition in that proceeding less than nine months after being served with a related
`infringement complaint, the Board denied the petition under NHK based on the trial date set in the
`district court’s scheduling order. Id. at *1, *4. Google requested rehearing, but its request was
`denied. Soon thereafter, the district court action was ordered to be transferred, and the trial date was
`vacated. Uniloc 2017, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 18-cv-00504, 2020 WL 3064460, at *6 (E.D. Tex.
`June 8, 2020).
`On the same day that Fintiv was designated as precedential, the Board applied the
`55.
`NHK-Fintiv rule to deny Intel’s IPR petition in Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC, No. IPR2020-
`00106, 2020 WL 2201828 (P.T.A.B. May 5, 2020). The petition had been timely filed, but the Board
`concluded that the “advanced stage” of related district court litigation, overlap in the issues, and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 12 of 69 PageID #: 28108
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`timing of trial—which was scheduled to begin approximately seven months before IPR would have
`ended, but which was subsequently rescheduled—meant that IPR would have been “an inefficient use
`of Board, party, and judicial resources.” Id. at *6.
`Eight days later, the Board applied the NHK-Fintiv rule to deny Apple’s IPR petition
`56.
`in Fintiv. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, 2020 WL 2486683, at *3-4, *7 (P.T.A.B.
`May 13, 2020) (Paper 15). In Fintiv, Apple had filed an IPR petition challenging the patentability of
`certain patent claims that had been asserted against Apple in a patent infringement suit. Apple timely
`filed the IPR petition less than ten months after the infringement suit began. After Apple filed its IPR
`petition, the district court in the infringement lawsuit held a Markman hearing (to consider evidence
`relevant to the interpretation of the patent claims) and then set a trial date, which it later rescheduled.
`Id. at *3-4, *7. In declining to institute IPR, the Board explained that
`the District Court case is ongoing, trial is scheduled to begin two months before
`we would reach a final decision in this proceeding, the District Court has
`expended effort resolving substantive issues in the case, the identical claims are
`challenged based on the same prior art in both the Petition and in the District
`Court, and the defendant in District Court and the Petitioner here are the same
`party.
`
`Id. at *7.
`
`The Board subsequently applied the NHK-Fintiv rule to deny IPR petitions filed five
`57.
`months after service of the complaint in the pending infringement action in Cisco Systems, Inc. v.
`Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. No. IPR2020-00122, 2020 WL 2511246 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2020);
`No. IPR2020-00123, 2020 WL 2511247 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2020). Based on the scheduled trial date
`in pending infringement litigation, overlap in substantive issues, and the absence of a stay in the
`district court, the Board assumed that proceeding with IPR would “duplicate effort” in the litigation,
`Ramot, No. IPR2020-00122, 2020 WL 2511246, at *4—even though the district court had denied a
`stay “without prejudice” in light of its “established practice” to entertain stay requests only after the
`Board institutes IPR, id. at *3—and denied Cisco’s IPR petitions to avoid “an inefficient use of
`Board, party, and judicial resources,” id. at *5; see also Ramot, No. IPR2020-00123, 2020 WL
`2511247, at *5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 530-7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 13 of 69 PageID #: 28109
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06128 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`
`Indeed, since the NHK and Fintiv decisions’ designation as precedential, the Board has
`58.
`applied the NHK-Fintiv rule to deny IPR petitions filed by Plaintiffs and others on numerous
`occasions. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. IPR2020-00407, 2020 WL 4680039 (P.T.A.B.
`Aug. 11, 2020); Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. IPR2020-00408, 2020 WL 4680042 (P.T.A.B. Aug.
`11, 2020); Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. IPR2020-00409, 2020 WL 4680047 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11,
`2020); Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. IPR2020-00203, 2020 WL 3662522 (P.T.A.B. July 6, 2020);
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd., No. IPR2020-00484, 2020 WL 4820592 (P.T.A.B.
`Aug. 18, 2020); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd., No. IPR2020-00122, 2020 WL
`2511246 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2020); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd., No. IPR2020-
`00123, 2020 WL 2511247 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2020); Ethicon, Inc. v. Bd. of Regents, Univ. of Tex.
`Sys., No. IPR2019-00406, 2020 WL 3088846 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2020); Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017,
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00115, 2020 WL 1523248 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech.
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00498, 2020 WL 4820595 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech.
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00526, 2020 WL 4820610 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech.
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00527, 2020 WL 4820610 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech.
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00141, 2020 WL 3033208 (P.T.A.B. June 4, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech.
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00142, 2020 WL 3033209 (P.T.A.B. June 4, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech.
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00158, 2020 WL 2563448 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech.
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00112, 2020 WL 2544910 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech.
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00113, 2020 WL 2544912 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2020); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech.
`LLC, No. IPR2020-00114, 2020 WL 2544917 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 20

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