Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on May 20, 2020 in the above proceeding is hereby granted.

The amount of $15,000.00 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.

The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.

C. Related Matters The parties state that the ’482 patent was originally asserted in Michigan Motor Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:19-cv- 10485 (E.D.

The comparison is made by calculating “an ecological parameter as an adjusted mean of the sum of deviations of each value of power consumption measured with respect to its corresponding reference value.” Id. at 3:22–25.

In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the Supreme Court set out a framework for assessing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 that requires consideration of four factors: (1) the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” (2) the “scope and content of the prior

First, with regard to burning wood, Luff states: The example HRCM device 302 and/or the example data collector 110 include a user interface to enter and/or adjust resource consumption information.

Based on the facts of this case, Dr. Bower’s conclusory testimony without any explanation is not sufficient to demonstrate that Luff teaches a processor that “receives the waste production data.” See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (noting that the “[l]ack of factual support” for an expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value”).7 For the reasons explained above, the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition fail to provide sufficient reasoning and evidence to

On June 26, 2020, Patent Owner filed a motion requesting pro hac vice admission of Robyn T. Williams.

In authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the moving party to provide a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear in the proceeding.

Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying Affidavit, we conclude that Ms. Williams has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this proceeding, and has demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the subject matter of this proceeding.

Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Williams.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of Robyn T. Williams is granted; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall continue to have a registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding, but

Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of the petition.

The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause.

Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site under “Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.” The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.

Many non-profit organizations, both inside and outside the intellectual property field, offer alternative dispute resolution services.

If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration, mediation, etc.) was used and the general result.

Pursuant to the May 20, 2020 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 5) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.10(c) and 42.22, Patent Owner Michigan Motor Technologies, LLC (“MMT” or “Patent Owner”) respectfully requests that the Board recognize Robyn T. Williams of Devlin Law Firm LLC as backup counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding.

The following statement of facts shows that there is good cause for the Board to recognize Ms. Williams pro hac vice.

Ms. Williams is an experienced litigation attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.

Ms. Williams has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of the C.F.R. Ms. Williams will be subject to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Code of Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 10.20 et seq.

Therefore, Patent Owner respectfully submits that there is good cause for the Board to recognize Ms. Williams as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding.

“Statistics: Methods and Applications: A Comprehensive Reference for Science, Industry, and Data Mining,” by Thomas Hill and Pawel Lewicki (EX1006, “Hill”), was published in 2006, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’482 patent.

In some embodiments, each comparison value can be Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,909,482 assigned a weight (in the form of a multiplied coefficient) to adjust the importance of a particular power consumption and/or waste in the overall average.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Although the prior art that can be considered in inter partes reviews is limited to patents and printed publications, it does not follow that we ignore the skilled artisan’s knowledge when determining whether it would have been obvious to modify the prior art.”) Furthermore, as Luff expressly recognizes, a POSA would have been well aware of the need to harmonize units when comparing different resources that are consumed (e.g., electricity versus water consumption), and thus would have been motivated to implement a statistical analysis method that can be used with measurements having different units.

In Luff, “example systems, methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture described herein may be used to measure, calculate, and/or identify resource and/or energy consumption by a person, household, agency, corporation, company, government, and/or other entity.” EX1005, 3:12-16; EX1008, ¶0017.

Furthermore, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success making this combination because Luff already discloses comparing its data, and the mean percentage error as demonstrated in Hill simply provides specific steps to undertake this comparison.