`
`Paper: 10
`Entered: May, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOMTOM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBIRD TECH, LLC d/b/a BLACKBIRD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition (SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S. Apr.
`24, 2018)). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one
`of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,434,212 (’212 patent) is
`unpatentable (Paper 7, 36). Specifically, Petitioner challenged claims 1–8 in
`the Petition on the following grounds:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1–8
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1–8
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Jimenez (US 4,367,752) (Ex. 1002) (hereinafter,
`“Jimenez”), Levi (US 5,583,776) (Ex. 1003)
`(hereinafter, “Levi”), and “knowledge of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art”
`Jimenez, Ebeling (US 6,145,389) (Ex. 1004)
`(hereinafter “Ebeling”), and “knowledge of a
`person having ordinary skill in the art”
`
`
`(Paper 1, 5–6) We instituted on:
`Claims
`Basis
`References
`
`1–5
`
`§ 103 (a)
`
`Jimenez, Levi, and “knowledge of a person having
`ordinary skill in the art”
`
`
`(Paper 7, 36). We modify our institution decision to institute on all of the
`challenged claims and all of the grounds presented in the Petition.
`Specifically, we modify our decision to include the Petitioner’s asserted
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`
`ground that under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), (i) claims 6–8 are unpatentable over
`Jimenez, Levi, and “knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art”
`and (ii) claims 1–8 are unpatentable over Jimenez, Ebeling, and “knowledge
`of a person having ordinary skill in the art.”
`The parties shall confer to discuss the impact, if any, of this Order on
`the current schedule. If, after conferring, the parties wish to change the
`schedule or submit further briefing due to this Order, the parties must, within
`one week of the date of this Order, request a conference call with the panel
`to seek authorization for such changes or briefing.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that our institution decision is modified to include review
`of all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the Petition,
`specifically:
`Claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jimenez,
`Levi, and “knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the
`art”; and
`
`Claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jimenez,
`Ebeling, and “knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the
`art”; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner shall confer
`to determine whether they desire any changes to the schedule or any further
`briefing, and, if so, shall request a conference call with the panel to seek
`authorization for such changes or briefing within one week of the date of this
`Order.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02023
`Patent 6,434,212
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Dipu A. Doshi
`Michael S. Marcus
`Megan R. Wood
`BLANK ROME LLP
`ddoshi@blankrome.com
`mwood@blankrome.com
`mmarcus@blankrome.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Walter D. Davis, Jr.
`Wayne M. Helge
`Aldo Noto
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`wdavis@dbjg.com
`whelge@dbjg.com
`anoto@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`