Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: February 6, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SHENZHEN APALTEK CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, KEVIN W. CHERRY,and
`JASON W. MELVIN,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of /nter Partes Review
`35 US.C. $314
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: February 6, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SHENZHEN APALTEK CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, KEVIN W. CHERRY,and
`JASON W. MELVIN,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of /nter Partes Review
`35 US.C. $314
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ShenZhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner’’) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`
`“Pet.”) requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1—30 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,245,764 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the °764 patent’). Asetek
`
`Danmark A/S (“Patent Owner’) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5
`
`(Prelim. Resp.”’). As authorized, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply.
`
`Paper 6. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have
`
`authority to determine whetherto institute review.
`
`An inter partes review maynotbeinstituted unless “the information
`
`presented in the petition .. . and any response .
`
`.
`
`. showsthat there is a
`
`reasonablelikelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respectto at
`
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the
`
`reasonsset forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one
`
`challenged claim, and weinstitute inter partes review.
`
`A. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`Petitioner identifies itself as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 146. Patent
`
`Owneridentifies Asetek Danmark A/S, Asetek USA,Inc., Asetek A/S, and
`
`Asetek Holdings, Inc. as the real parties-in-interest for Patent Owner.
`
`Paper 4, 1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices).
`
`B.
`
`RELATED MATTERS
`
`Theparties identify the followingrelated litigations: Asetek Danmark
`
`A/S vy. CoollT Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 3:19-cv-00410 (N.D. Cal.); Cooler
`
`Master Co., Ltd. vy. Asetek Danmark A/S, C.A. No. 4:21-cv-04627 (N.D.
`
`Cal.); and Asetek Danmark A/S v. Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd., C.A. No.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`6:21-cv-00501 (W.D. Tex.) (transferred to N. D. Cal., May 6, 2022).
`
`Pet. 147; Paper 4, 1.
`
`Theparties also identify the following Office proceedings:
`
`IPR2020-00522, IPR2020-00523, and IPR2020-00524, which werefiled in
`
`February 2020 and concluded in August 2021, IPR2021-01195 against U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,613,601 and IPR2021-01196 against U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,599,196. Pet. 147; Paper 4, 1-2.
`
`C.
`
`THE ’764 PATENT
`
`The ’764 patentis titled “Cooling System for a Computer System.”
`
`Ex. 1001, Code (54). It issued from an application filed October 7, 2011, as
`
`a continuation of and claimspriority to a PCT application filed May 6, 2005.
`
`Id. at Code (63).
`
`The ’764 patentrelates to a liquid-cooling system for a computer
`
`system. /d. at Code (57). The specification explains, at the time of the
`
`invention, air cooling arrangements were the most-used cooling system for
`
`cooling central processing units (CPUs) in computer systems. /d. at 1:17-31.
`
`An alternative design knownat the time of the invention wasto use a
`
`cooling liquid circulating inside a closed system by means of a pumping unit
`
`with a heat exchanger past which the cooling liquid circulates. /d. at 1:32-
`
`36. The specification contendsthat liquid cooling is generally moreefficient
`
`and quieter than air cooling, but that a liquid cooling design consists of
`
`“many components,” which increasesthe total installation time, size, and
`
`risk of leakage of the cooling liquid from the system. /d. at 1:37—47. Thus,
`
`one object of the invention is to provide a small and compactliquid-cooling
`
`solution that is more efficient than existing air-cooling arrangements and can
`
`be produced at low cost enabling high production volumes, be easy-to-use
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`and implement, can be used with existing CPU types and computer systems,
`
`and requires a low level of maintenance or no maintenanceatall. /d. at
`
`1:51-60.
`
`An illustrative embodiment of such a device is depicted in Figures 7
`
`and 8, reproduced below.
`
`FIG. 7
`
`FIG. &
`
`Figure 7! is a perspective view of the cooling system showing reservoir
`
`housing 14 with the heat exchanging surface 5 (shown in Figure 8) and the
`
`pump 21 (shown in Figure 8) inside the reservoir. /d. at 15:61—16:7. Figure 8
`
`is a cut-out view into reservoir housing 14, when the reservoir, pump 21, and
`
`' Tt appears the specification transposes the description of Figure 7 with that
`of Figure 8. Werefer to the description of “Figure 8” in the specification in
`our discussion of Figure 7, and werefer to the specification’s discussion of
`“Figure 7” in our discussion of Figure 8.
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`heat exchanging surface 4 are situated inside the reservoir. /d. at 15:28-30.
`
`The reservoir has a tube inlet connection (not shown in Figure 8) through
`
`which the cooling liquid enters the reservoir. /d. at 15:30—32. From the tube
`
`inlet connection, the cooling liquid flows throughthe reservoir passing heat
`
`exchanging surface 4 and enters the inlet of the pump. /d. at 15:32—35. After
`
`the cooling liquid flows through the pump, the cooling liquid passes out of
`
`the outlet of the pump andfurther out through tube outlet connection 16. /d.
`
`at 15:35—37. As shown in Figure 7, tube inlet connection and tube outlet
`
`connection 16 are connected to heat radiator 11 by means of connecting
`
`tubes 24 and 25. /d. at 15:64—67. Cooling liquid flows into and out of the
`
`reservoir and the heat radiator through connecting tubes 24 and 25,
`
`respectively. /d. Heat radiator 11 (shown in Figure 7) cools the cooling
`
`liquid before it passes back into the reservoir. /d. at 15:67—-16:4.
`
`The reservoir may be provided with channels or segments for
`
`establishing a certain flow-path for the cooling liquid through the reservoir
`
`to prevent the cooling liquid passing the reservoir too quickly to take up a
`
`sufficient amount of heat from the heat exchanging surface. /d. at 16:25—42.
`
`Figures 17 and 20 show theinternal structures of a preferred
`
`embodimentof the reservoir according to the invention and are reproduced
`
`below. /d. at 21:12—22:59.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`
`Patent 8,245,764 B2 FIG. 17
`
`Figure 17 is an exploded perspective view of a preferred embodimentof a
`
`reservoir and a pumpand the heat exchanging surface. /d. at 9:62—64.
`
`Figure 20 is a simplified schematic showing a cross-sectional view of the
`
`reservoir along plane 20-20 of Figure 17. /d. at 10:4—5. Reservoir housing 14
`
`as shown in Figures 17 and 20 is in the form of a double-sided chassis
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`having a substantially conical, circular configuration with stiffening ribs 36
`
`extending axially along the exterior of the reservoir housing and configured
`
`to mount an electrical motor. /d. at 21:14—21. Reservoir housing 14 has
`
`recess 40 intended for accommodating stator 37 of an electrical motor
`
`driving impellor 33 of the pump, whichis attached to shaft 38 of rotor 39 of
`
`the electric motor. /d. at 21:28—40. The specification explains that “a liquid-
`
`proof division” is made between rotor 39 of the motor, which is submerged
`
`in the cooling liquid, and the stator 37 of the pump. /d. at 21:41-51.
`
`The enclosed space between impeller 33 and heating exchanging
`
`interface 4 is divided into two separate chambers by impeller cover 46A and
`
`intermediate member 47, as shown in Figure 20. The chamber formed by
`
`impeller 33 and impeller cover 46A is described as “pump chamber 46” and
`
`has outlet 34. /d. at 22:26—-53.
`
`D.
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Challenged claim 1 is independent and is reproduced below:
`
`1. A cooling system for a heat-generating component,
`comprising:
`
`a double-sided chassis adapted to mount a pump configured
`to circulate a cooling liquid, the pump comprising a
`stator and an impeller, the impeller being positioned on
`the underside of the chassis and the stator being
`positioned on the upperside of the chassis and isolated
`from the cooling liquid;
`
`a reservoir adapted to pass the cooling liquid therethrough,
`the reservoir including:
`
`a pump chamberincluding the impeller and formed
`below the chassis, the pump chamberbeing defined
`by at least an impeller cover having one or more
`passagesfor the cooling liquid to pass through;
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`a thermal exchange chamber formed below the pump
`chamberand vertically spaced apart from the pump
`chamber, the pump chamberand the thermal
`exchange chamber being separate chambersthat are
`fluidly coupled together by the one or more passages;
`and
`
`a heat-exchanging interface, the heat-exchanging
`interface forming a boundary wall of the thermal
`exchange chamber, and configured to be placed in
`thermal contact with a surface of the heat-generating
`component; and
`
`a heat radiator fluidly coupled to the reservoir and
`configured to dissipate heat from the cooling liquid.
`
`Id. at 27:39-64. Claims 10 and 15 are also independent andrecite generally
`
`similar limitations. See id. at 28:27—43, 28:57—29:13. The other challenged
`
`claims depend,directly or indirectly, from claim 1, 10, or 15. /d. at 27:66—
`
`30:12; Ex. 1002, 1:18-2:35.
`
`E.
`
`PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`
`Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Batchelder>, Duan
`
`Duan, Laing*
`
`Duan, Duan-I, Laing
`
`7 US Pub. No. 2006/0185830 Al, pub. Aug. 24, 2006 (Ex. 1006).
`7 US Pub. No. 2006/0185829 A1, pub. Aug. 24, 2006 (Ex. 1007).
`* USPub. No. 2004/0052663 A1, pub. Mar. 18, 2004 (Ex. 1015).
`> US Pat. No. 6,019,165, iss. Feb. 1, 2000 (Ex. 1008).
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`
` Batchelder, Duan, Laing
`
`Pet. 3. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of George Karamanis, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1003.
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`35U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`Patent Ownerargues that we should deny institution under § 325(d)
`
`because the Petition presents challenges based on Batchelder, which the
`
`Examinerpreviously considered. Prelim. Resp. 10—14. In particular, the
`
`Examiner rejected the pending claims over a combination of Tamioka (US
`
`Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0069432) with Batchelder. Ex. 1004, 101-05.
`
`Significantly, the Examiner relied on Batchelder only as teaching (1) the use
`
`of copper and aluminum in a heat-exchanging interface and (2) the use of an
`
`intermediate member in the pump unit. /d. at 101-02.
`
`Applicant did not discuss Batchelder’s disclosuresrelative to
`
`Tamioka’s asserted deficiencies regarding claims | or 12. Ex. 1004, 81, 85.
`
`It did assert that Batchelder failed to rectify Tamioka’s asserted deficiencies
`
`regarding claim 17, but provided no explanation to support that assertion. /d.
`
`at 84. Our review of the record indicates that Petitioner relies on Batchelder
`
`in a significantly different combination than was previously considered by
`
`the Examiner. Thus, we concludethe Petition does not present the sameart
`
`or arguments previously presented to the Office. See Advanced Bionics, LLC
`
`v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Gerdte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 7—
`
`9 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`Moreover, Petitioner presents four grounds against the challenged
`
`claims that do not involve Batchelderat all. Because Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments for discretionary denial under § 325(d) at best implicate only the
`
`groundsincluding Batchelder, we determine that § 325(d) is not sufficiently
`
`implicated such that its statutory purpose would be undermined by
`
`instituting here.° Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument based on § 325(d)
`
`is not persuasive.
`
`B.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARYSKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner proposesthat a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling
`systems for computer systems, would have had a Bachelor of
`Science (B.S.) in electrical or mechanical engineering, or
`similar advanced post-graduate education in this area, or would
`have possessedat least 2-3 years of experiencein liquid cooling
`systems for computer systemsor similar systems. A POSITA
`would be knowledgeable of the concepts, components, and their
`functions described as “prior art” in the °355 patent such as,
`e.g., pumps, radiators, fans, reservoirs, and other techniques of
`heat dissipation and liquid cooling. (Ex-1001,1:11-47.) In
`addition, a POSITA would be knowledgeable aboutelectric
`motors and their components(e.g., electromagnetic coils,
`rotors, stators, AC/DC motors,etc.)
`
`Pet. 5—6 (citing Ex. 1003 4 13-18). Patent Ownerdoesnot dispute this
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. For
`
`purposesof this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary
`
`skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the
`
`specification and in the asserted prior art references.
`
`° See SAS Q&As, D1 (June 5, 2018), available at https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/default/files/documents/sas_qas_20180605.pdf.
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`C.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`For an inter partes review petition filed after November 13, 2018, we
`
`construe claim terms “using the same claim construction standard that would
`
`be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019).
`
`Petitioner submits that the parties have stipulated to construe the term
`
`‘reservoir’ in the ’764 patent to mean ‘single receptacle defining a fluid flow
`
`path.’” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 2; Ex. 1003 4 19); accord Prelim. Resp. 4.
`
`Weapply that definition for purposes of this decision.
`
`Based on our analysis of the issues in dispute at this stage of the
`
`proceeding, we concludethat no other claim term requires express
`
`construction at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`D. OBVIOUSNESS OVER DUAN
`
`Petitioner maps the language of independent claim 1 to Duan’s
`
`disclosures, modified as described below by those of Duan-I. Pet. 26-48.
`
`Duan’s system includes a cooling plate module with a cooling plate
`
`integrally formed with a liquid driving module such that the layout of the
`
`cooling plate module can be minimized to reduce space. Ex. 1006 4 7.
`
`Figure 6, reproduced below, is a view of Duan’s “liquid cooling cyclic
`
`mechanism.” /d. § 17.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`Duan’s Figure 6 showsliquid cooling cyclic mechanism 100 for cooling
`
`CPU 200. /d. § 22. Liquid cooling cyclic mechanism 100 comprises cooling
`
`module 10 and water tank module 20, which is connected with cooling plate
`
`module 10 through ducts. /d. Cooling plate module 10 includes cooling plate
`
`1, liquid driving module 2, and heat absorbing interface 11. /d. Heat
`
`absorbing face 11 is in contact with CPU 200 for dissipating heat generated
`
`by the CPU./d. § 26. Water tank 20 includes cooling stage 53. /d. 25.
`
`Driven by liquid driving module 2 (a pump), liquid heated by CPU 200
`
`flows to cooling stage 53, where heat dissipates through heat-dissipating fins
`
`531, and the resulting cool liquid flows back to cooling plate module 10. /d.
`
`q 23-26.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`Petitioner asserts that, “[g]iven the known ‘compacttrend of
`
`computer[s]’ recognized by Duan [0006], a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to rotate Duan’s liquid driving module 2 (pump) counterclockwise
`
`by 90 degrees in Figure 7 to reduce the system’s overall height, in view of
`
`Duan-I.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 55). Petitioner relies on the similar
`
`cooling modules disclosed in Duan and Duan-I, depicted in Figure 7 of each
`
`reference and reproduced below:
`
`
`+-seceaiceregyEEEoP
`
`
`oon
`
`
`
`2
`
`Duan
`
`Duan-l
`
`Id. (quoting Ex. 1006, Fig. 7; Ex. 1007, Fig. 7). Duan’s Figure 7 depicts
`
`cooling plate module 10 comprising liquid driving module 2 located on top
`
`of cooling plate 1 with impeller stage 223 having a rotational axis along the
`
`surface of CPU 200 being cooled. Ex. 1006 9f§ 22, 23, 27. Duan-I’s Figure 7
`
`depicts liquid-cooling heat dissipation apparatus 100 comprising liquid
`
`driving unit 2 located on top of cooling plate module 3 with impeller stage
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`23 having a rotational axis normal to the surface of CPU 200 being cooled.
`
`Ex. 1007 4] 20-22, 28.
`
`Thus, Petitioner identifies the reservoir of its asserted, modified
`
`system in an annotated illustration, reproduced below:
`
`o
`
`
`
`
`a ieLR
`ace
`an,fadi
`pais__,
`
`my
`yy
`=
`if * yy
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`i
`a Spe
`\
`
`
`-ifWN yts WA i
`ae
`oN
`LTE
`
`
`
`veia
`
`
`
`er Preeeae
`
`
`
`a=-scamSS,
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 37 (quoting Ex. 1003 4 63). Petitioner’s annotated illustration shows
`
`Duan’s modified cooling plate module with the asserted reservoir outlined in
`
`orange.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Duan lacks the claimed “reservoir.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 5—10. In that argument, Patent Ownerpurports to contrast the ’764
`
`patent’s disclosures with the device Petitioner asserts. Patent Owner
`
`provides an annotated version of the 764 patent’s Figure 20, reproduced
`
`below:
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`Ras SVENey A
`%
`MESHENY
`& \
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fue
`rharnbe oF
`
`Neal Sxchanging
`interface WW
`
`
`
`+
`
`3
`ange chamber
`
`
`Figure 20
`
`Prelim. Resp. 5 (annotating Ex. 1001, Fig. 20). Figure 20 depicts a
`
`cross-sectional view of Figure 17’s reservoir, including the reservoir housing
`
`(not enumerated), impeller cover 46A, pump chamber46, intermediate
`
`member 47, heat exchangesurface 4, and thermal exchange chamber 47A.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:4—5, 21:13—22:53. Patent Ownerasserts that Figure 20 depicts
`
`a single-receptacle reservoir “that includes dual chambers: a “pump
`
`chamber’ and a ‘thermal exchange chamber.’” Prelim. Resp. 4—5.
`
`In Patent Owner’s view, Duan’s cooling plate module 10 “includes
`
`two receptacles—one defined by accommodation chamber 21 and another
`
`defined by cap 3 and cooling plate 1—and those two receptacles are simply
`
`attached together.” Prelim. Resp. 6 (annotating Ex. 1006, Fig. 3).
`
`Patent Ownerasserts that when the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s
`
`verdict in Asetek Danmark A/S/ v. CMI USA Inc., 852 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017), it affirmed that “two separate receptacles attached together do not
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`form a single receptacle.” Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing CMI, 852 F.3d at 1357-
`
`58). While the court affirmed the verdict, the only invalidity issueit
`
`addressed was whether an asserted prior-art patent—Koga, US Patent
`
`No. 7,544,049—disclosed a “thermal exchange chamber.” CMI, 852 F.3d
`
`at 1360-62 (addressing whether, “as a matter of law, Koga's ‘sucking
`
`channel’ is a ‘thermal exchange chamber’ (a requirementofall asserted
`
`claims of the ’764 patent) because the ‘sucking channel’ ‘exchanges some
`
`heat.’’’). Patent Ownerdoesnotassert that preclusion applies to bar
`
`Petitioner from an argumentcontrary to the jury’s findings or bar the Board
`
`from reaching a contrary finding regarding Koga’s asserted reservoir.
`
`Petitioner asserts different art here, in a different combination, and we will
`
`evaluate the record as presented.
`
`Patent Ownerargues additionally that a district judge in prior
`
`litigation determined that whether an asserted reservoir formed from two
`
`structures 1s a “single receptacle” or two receptacles turns on “whether the
`
`first and second structures can each function as a receptacle.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 8 (quoting Ex. 2003, 2—3 (Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Systems,
`
`Inc., Case 3:19-CV-00410-EMC,addressing summary judgmentof
`
`noninfringement)). Applying that test, Patent Ownerasserts that Duan’s
`
`drawings show its “accommodation chamber 21 and the combination of
`
`cap 3 and plate | can function independently.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing
`
`Ex. 1006, Figs. 2, 3, 6, 7). That assertion addresses Duan’s express
`
`disclosures without addressing Petitioner’s asserted combination. As
`
`summarized above, Petitioner asserts a modified version of Duan’s cooling
`
`unit. See Pet. 32-37. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument regarding Duan’s
`
`disclosed embodimentis inapposite.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`Asto the asserted combination, Patent Ownerasserts “the single-
`
`receptacle ‘reservoir’ limitation cannotbe satisfied by attaching two
`
`receptacles, irrespective of their orientation.” Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner
`
`does not support or explain that assertion, or that Petitioner’s combination
`
`has two receptacles. Accordingly, it is not persuasive. Our review of the
`
`record leads us to conclude that the claim language reads on Petitioner’s
`
`asserted combination muchasit would read on the embodimentdepicted in
`
`the ’764 patent—areservoir made from multiple pieces is divided into
`
`chambersby internal baffle elements.
`
`Patent Owner doesnot otherwise challenge Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`See Prelim. Resp. 9-10. We have reviewed the remainder of Petitioner’s
`
`contentions and conclude that they show Petitioner has a reasonable
`
`likelihood of success regarding obviousness over Duan and Duan-I. See
`
`Pet. 26-87.
`
`E. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner presents additional grounds, which Patent Ownerhas not
`
`addressed other than as discussed above. Wedo not evaluate the additional
`
`groundsat this time, having determinedthat the ground based on Duan and
`
`Duan-I justifies institution. Duringtrial, the parties may raise arguments
`
`regarding any ground in the Petition, and we will considerall grounds.
`
`I. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonablelikelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim. We
`
`have evaluatedall of the parties’ submissions and determinethat the record
`
`supports institution.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`Our determination at this stage of the proceeding is based on the
`
`evidentiary record currently before us. This decision to institute trial is not a
`
`final decision as to patentability of any claim for which inter partes review
`
`has been instituted. Our final decision will be based on the full record
`
`developed duringtrial.
`
`Accordingly,it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review
`
`of claims 1—30 of the ’764 patent is instituted on the groundsset forth in the
`
`Petition;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution ofa trial
`
`commencing on the entry date of this decision.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01317
`Patent 8,245,764 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James Ryerson
`Heath Briggs
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`ryersonj@gtlaw.com
`briggsh@gtlaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Eric Raciti
`Arpita Bhattacharyya
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT, & DUNNER LLP
`Eric.raciti@finnegan.com
`Arpita.bhattacharyya@finnegan.com
`
`19
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
