Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 13
`Entered: January 19, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA,LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`YECHEZKAL EVAN SPERO,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-01126
`Patent 11,208,029 B2
`
`Before JON M. JURGOVAN, JASON W. MELVIN,and
`AARON W. MOORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of /nter Partes Review
`3S US.C. § 314
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 13
`Entered: January 19, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA,LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`YECHEZKAL EVAN SPERO,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-01126
`Patent 11,208,029 B2
`
`Before JON M. JURGOVAN, JASON W. MELVIN,and
`AARON W. MOORE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of /nter Partes Review
`3S US.C. § 314
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01126
`Patent 11,208,029 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1—33 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,208,029 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’029 patent’’). Petitioner filed also a
`
`Contingent Motion for Joinder seeking to join Petitioner as a party to Volkswagen
`
`Group ofAmerica, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan Spero, 1PR2022-01586 (“the VW IPR”),
`
`instituted May 24, 2023. Petitioner filed also a Petition Ranking and Explanation
`
`of Material Differences Between Petitioner (Paper4, “Petition Ranking).
`
`Yechezkal Evan Spero (“Patent Owner’) filed a Preliminary Response. (Paper 11,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”) and did not oppose joinder. 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 reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challengedin the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we
`
`exercise our discretion to deny institution.
`
`A. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`Asteal parties in interest, Petitioner identifies: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC;
`
`Mercedes-Benz Group AG; Mercedes-Benz AG; and Mercedes-Benz Intellectual
`
`Property GmbH & Co. KG. Pet. 102. Patent Owneridentifies Yechezkal Evan
`
`Spero and Torchlight Technologies LLC asthe real parties in interest, noting that
`
`Torchlight is the exclusive licensee of the 029 patent. Paper 6, 1 (Patent Owner’s
`
`Mandatory Notices).
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01126
`Patent 11,208,029 B2
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`
`The parties identify the following related federal district court litigations of
`
`the °029 patent: Torchlight Techs. LLC v. Daimler AG et al., No. 1:22-cv-00751
`
`(D. Del.); Torchlight Technologies LLC vy. General Motors LLC etal., No. 1:22-
`
`cv-00752 (D. Del). Pet. 102—03; Paper6, 1.
`
`Theparties identify the following PTAB inter partes reviewsof the
`
`°029 patent: IPR2022-01500; IPR2023-01586; IPR2023-01034; and
`
`IPR2023-01122. Pet. 102-03; Paper 6, 1—2.!
`
`C. THE ’*029 PATENT
`
`The ’029 patentis titled “Adaptive Headlight System”and relates to motor
`
`vehicle headlamps with LED light sources and a processor to control the headlamp
`
`light pattern. Ex. 1001, codes (54), (57). The specification more generally
`
`describes a lighting device that “incorporates one or more discrete light sources
`
`and their ancillary optical and electrical control equipment in an integrated
`
`illuminating element.” /d. at 13:34—36. The combined unitis referred to as a
`
`Digital Lighting Fixture (DLF). /d. at 18:29-33.
`
`The specification further describes transportation-vehicle applications. /d.
`
`at 50:49-57:35. One such application involves a DLF headlamp device that
`
`includes a cluster of LEDs to illuminate around a curve. /d. at 51:54-63, 54:8-15.
`
`With LEDshaving a variety of aims, the headlamp’s light distribution pattern may
`
`be controlled based on a numberoffactors, including location data from a GPS
`
`system, providing information about upcoming curvesin the road. See id. at 51:54—
`
`67, 54:15-22.
`
`' Patent Ownerfurther lists reissue applications, reexaminations, and IPRs
`involving patents related to the ’029 patent. Paper 3, 2-3.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01126
`Patent 11,208,029 B2
`
`D. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Petitioner challengesall thirty-three claims of the ’029 patent. Pet. 4.
`
`Claim | is independent and is reproduced below:
`
`1. A-system, for a motor vehicle, comprising:
`
`a plurality of headlamps, each comprising a plurality of LED light
`sources;
`
`one or more processors; and
`
`a memorystoring instructions that, when executed by one or more
`of the one or more processors, enable the one or more
`processorsto:
`
`receivefirst data, including at least map data, indicating a road
`curvature upcoming along a road on which the motor
`vehicle is traveling;
`determine a light change, the change adapting a light pattern of
`the headlamps in at least one of color, intensity or spatial
`distribution to increase light in a direction of the road
`curvature ahead of the motor vehicle and shaping light
`based at least in part on the road curvature; and
`control at least a first plurality of the LED light sourcesto
`provide light based at least in part on the determined light
`change and prior to the motor vehicle reaching the road
`curvature.
`
`[7]
`
`[7]
`
`Ex. 1001, 95:56—96:8.
`
`? Patent Ownerrefers to these as the “predictive curve illumination limitations.”
`Prelim. Resp. 16.
`> Patent Ownerrefersto these as the “control limitations.” Prelim. Resp. 16.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01126
`Patent 11,208,029 B2
`
`E. PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`This proceeding includes the following unpatentability grounds:
`
`
`
` 9,20, 31
`
`1-8, 10-19, 21-30, 32, 33
`
`103
`
`Alden, Kobayashi®
`Alden, Beam’, Kobayashi
`
`Pet. 4—5. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Jianzhong Jiao. Ex. 1003.
`
`Il.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner asserts that we should institute here only if we deny institution in
`
`IPR2023-01034. Pet. 105. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is expressly conditioned
`
`on whether weinstitute review in IPR2023-01034. Mot. 1.
`
`Because weinstituted review in IPR2023-01034, we accept Petitioner’s
`
`position and exercise our discretion to deny institution here, regardless of the
`
`Petition’s merits. Because we deny institution, Petitioner’s Motion for Joinderis
`
`moot.
`
`I. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons discussed above, we exercise our discretion to deny
`
`institution. In addition, Petitioner’s Motion for Joinderis dismissed as moot.
`
`* The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011), effective March 16, 2013, amended the applicable statutes.
`Because the application from which the ’029 patent issued wasfiled before this
`date, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`> US 2003/0137849 A1, filed Jan. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1005).
`° US 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000 (Ex. 1006).
`TUS 6,144,158, issued Nov. 7, 2000 (Ex. 1007).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01126
`Patent 11,208,029 B2
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of the
`
`°029 patent is denied and notrial is instituted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat Petitioner’s Contingent Motion for Joinderis
`
`dismissed as moot.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01126
`Patent 11,208,029 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Celine Crowson
`Joe Raffetto
`Scott Hughes
`Ryan Stephenson
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`celine.crowson@hoganlovells.com
`joseph raffetto@hoganlovells.com
`scott.hughes@hoganlovells.com
`ryan.stephenson@hoganlovells.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Sangeeta G. Shah
`David Bir
`
`Andrew Turner
`
`BROOKS KUSHMANP.C.
`sshah@brookskushman.com
`aturner@brookskushman.com
`btomsa@brookskushman.com
`
`
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
