Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`Entered: May 3, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-01621 (Patent 6,438,057 B1)
`IPR2016-01622 (Patent 6,850,414 B2)
`IPR2016-01623 (Patent 7,315,454 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Guidance on Motion to Amend Claims
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues identical in all three cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`Entered: May 3, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-01621 (Patent 6,438,057 B1)
`IPR2016-01622 (Patent 6,850,414 B2)
`IPR2016-01623 (Patent 7,315,454 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Guidance on Motion to Amend Claims
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues identical in all three cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01621 (Patent 6,438,057 B1)
`IPR2016-01622 (Patent 6,850,414 B2)
`IPR2016-01623 (Patent 7,315,454 B2)
`
`
`A conference call in the above proceedings was held on May 2, 2017,
`among respective counsel for the parties and Judges Medley, Homere, and
`Clements. Patent Owner requested the conference call to satisfy the “to
`confer” requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a) with regard to the filing of a
`motion to amend claims. We provided the parties with verbal guidance. For
`the convenience of the parties, additional guidance regarding the
`requirements of a motion to amend is provided below.
`A motion to amend claims only may cancel claims or propose
`substitute claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3). A request to cancel claims
`will not be regarded as contingent. However, we shall treat the request to
`substitute claims as contingent. That means a proposed substitute claim will
`be considered only if the original patent claim it replaces is determined
`unpatentable or is canceled by Patent Owner.
`A proposed substitute claim should be responsive to the ground of
`unpatentability applicable to the original patent claim for which it is a
`substitute, and may not enlarge the scope of the claim or introduce new
`matter. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2).
`The presumption is that only one substitute claim is needed for each
`original patent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3). This requirement is
`viewed on a per claim basis, and the proposed substitute claim must be
`traceable back to the original patent claim that it is intended to replace.
`Generally, the proposed substitute claim should not eliminate any feature or
`element of the original patent claim which it is intended to replace. If the
`Patent Owner proposes more than one substitute claim for a particular patent
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01621 (Patent 6,438,057 B1)
`IPR2016-01622 (Patent 6,850,414 B2)
`IPR2016-01623 (Patent 7,315,454 B2)
`
`claim, the motion should articulate a special circumstance to justify the
`request.
`A claim listing, reproducing each proposed substitute claim, is
`required. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b). Any claim with a changed scope,
`subsequent to the amendment, should be included in the claim listing as a
`proposed substitute claim, and have a new claim number. This includes any
`dependent claim Patent Owner intends as dependent from a proposed
`substitute independent claim. For each proposed substitute claim, the
`motion must show, clearly, the changes of the proposed substitute claim with
`respect to the original patent claim which it is intended to replace. No
`particular form is required, but use of brackets to indicate deleted text and
`underlining to indicate inserted text is suggested.
`As the moving party, Patent Owner bears the burden of proof to
`establish that it is entitled to the relief requested in the motion to amend. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Entry of proposed amendments is not automatic, but
`occurs only upon Patent Owner demonstrating the patentability of each
`proposed substitute claim. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d
`1292, 1303–05 (Fed. Cir. 2015). If the motion is granted, the proposed
`substitute claims will be added to the involved patent, without examination.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner must show patentability, in general.
`In the motion to amend, Patent Owner must show written description
`support in the specification for each proposed substitute claim. See
`.37.C.F.R. § 42.121(b). Importantly, citation should be made to the original
`disclosure of the application, as filed, rather than to the patent as issued.
`Also, it is inadequate to show written description support for just the feature
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01621 (Patent 6,438,057 B1)
`IPR2016-01622 (Patent 6,850,414 B2)
`IPR2016-01623 (Patent 7,315,454 B2)
`
`added by the proposed substitute claim. Instead, Patent Owner must show
`written description support for the entire proposed substitute claim.
`If a new term is used in a proposed substitute claim, the meaning of
`which reasonably can be anticipated as subject to dispute, Patent Owner
`should provide a proposed claim construction in the motion to amend. With
`regard to claim construction, a mere statement that a certain term should be
`construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning is unhelpful. That
`plain and ordinary meaning should be provided in the motion, together with
`the supporting evidence.
`Additionally, Patent Owner must show patentability over the prior art
`that is relevant to the substitute claims, including prior art of record and
`prior art known to Patent Owner, and not just over the references applied by
`the Petitioner against the original patent claims. Microsoft v. Proxyconn,
`789 F.3d at 1306–08 (affirming the Board’s denial of a motion to amend
`claims where the patent owner failed to establish the patentability of the
`substitute claims over the prior art of record); see also MasterImage 3D, Inc.
`v. RealD, Inc., Case IPR2015-00040, slip op. at 1–2 (PTAB July 15, 2015)
`(Paper 42) (precedential) (explaining that prior art of record includes any
`material art of record in the current proceeding, including art asserted in
`grounds on which the Board did not institute review, as well as material art
`in the prosecution of the patent).
`The motion should provide sufficient underlying facts regarding any
`feature added by the proposed substitute claim. For instance, it should be
`revealed whether the feature was previously known anywhere, in whatever
`setting, and whether or not the feature was known in combination with any
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01621 (Patent 6,438,057 B1)
`IPR2016-01622 (Patent 6,850,414 B2)
`IPR2016-01623 (Patent 7,315,454 B2)
`
`of the other elements in the claim. If any such combination was known, the
`motion should explain the surrounding facts in that regard, and why it would
`not have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to adapt that
`knowledge for use with the rest of the claim elements.
`Patent Owner is not expected to know everything that a hypothetical
`person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know, but Patent Owner is
`expected to reveal what it does know, to the extent that it is relevant. For
`instance, the motion to amend should include a discussion of the ordinary
`skill in the art, with particular focus on the feature added to provide the basis
`of patentable distinction. In that regard, it would not be meaningful to say
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art possesses certain years of education
`and certain years of experience. Rather, the discussion should be specific
`about the technical knowledge pertaining to the feature added. Testimony
`filed with the motion also can explain the level of ordinary skill in the art
`and distinguish the substitute claims over the known art. Conclusory
`statements to the effect that no prior art known to Patent Owner renders
`obvious the proposed substitute claims, or that the closest prior art is the
`references in the record, are not meaningful. In addition, the motion to
`amend may not incorporate by reference arguments made in Patent Owner’s
`response to the petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`We remind the parties that the motion to amend, as well as any
`opposition to the motion to amend, each are limited to twenty-five (25)
`pages; Patent Owner’s reply to an opposition to the motion to amend is
`limited to twelve (12) pages; and the required claim listing may be contained
`in an appendix to the motion to amend, and does not count toward the page
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01621 (Patent 6,438,057 B1)
`IPR2016-01622 (Patent 6,850,414 B2)
`IPR2016-01623 (Patent 7,315,454 B2)
`
`limit of the motion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(vi), (b)(3), (c)(3); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.121(b).
`For further guidance on a motion to amend, the panel directs the
`parties to the following:
`Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., Case IPR2012-00005 (PTAB
`•
`June 3, 2013) (Paper 27) (discussing written description requirement);
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027
`•
`(PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) (setting forth considerations the Board
`typically makes when deciding on the motion);
`Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, v. PPC Broadband, Inc.,
`•
`Case IPR2014-00441 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2014) (Paper 19) (providing an
`overview of the requirements for the motion);
`MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., Case IPR2015-00040
`•
`(PTAB July 15, 2015) (Paper 42) (clarifying the scope of prior art to be
`addressed in the motion);
`Int’l Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. United States, Case
`•
`IPR2013-00124 (PTAB May 20, 2014) (Paper 12) (granting-in-part patent
`owner’s motion to amend);
`Riverbed Tech. Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc., Case IPR2013-
`•
`00403 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2014) (Paper 33), and Case IPR2013-00402 (PTAB
`Dec. 30, 2014) (Paper 35) (granting-in-part patent owner’s motions to
`amend);
`Google Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc., Case CBM2015-
`•
`00040 (PTAB June 21, 2016) (granting patent owner’s motion to amend);
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01621 (Patent 6,438,057 B1)
`IPR2016-01622 (Patent 6,850,414 B2)
`IPR2016-01623 (Patent 7,315,454 B2)
`
`
`Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Techs., Inc., Case IPR2015-
`•
`01225 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) (Paper 45) (granting-in-part patent owner’s
`motion to amend); and
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`•
`48766–67 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Section II.G. Motions to Amend).
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the requirement “to confer” pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.121(a) is satisfied.
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David Hoffman
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`IPR37307-0007IP1@fr.com
`hoffman@fr.com
`
`Martha Hopkins
`Law Offices of S.J. Christine Yang
`
`IPR@sjclawpc.com
`mhopkins@sjclawpc.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`Nathan Lowenstein
`Lowenstein & Weather Wax LLP
`
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`7
`
`
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
