UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00033
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO ITS PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00033
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO ITS PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0123IPR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00033
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.,
`
`905 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 1, 2, 3
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar System, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR 2018-01508 (January 31, 2019) ....................................................... 1
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar System, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR 2018-01511 (January 31, 2019) ....................................................... 1
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar System, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR 2018-01514 (February 4, 2019) ....................................................... 1
`
`Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc.,
`
`899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 1, 2, 3
`
`Noven Pharms., Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`
`IPR2014-00549, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) ........................................... 2
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §315 .......................................................................................................1, 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00033
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0123IPR1
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`Petitioner’s Complaint challenging the validity of ‘760 patent claims
`2001
`2002 Order Temporarily Staying Case
`2003 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00033
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0123IPR1
`
`Ignoring the plain language of the statute and the Federal Circuit’s directives
`
`in Click-to-Call and Bennett Regulator, Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) asserts
`
`that Congress intended the filing of a civil action not bar institution of an IPR under
`
`the same set of facts where serving a complaint would do so. HP cites no authority
`
`for that distinction. Under 35 U.S.C. §315(a), if a party files a civil action for a
`
`declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, the Board may not institute an IPR, period.
`
`The PTAB already decided in related Petitions by HP that under these
`
`circumstances: Ҥ315(a)(1) bars institution of an inter partes review even though
`
`Petitioner voluntarily dismissed its earlier civil action challenging the validity of the
`
`‘760 patent without prejudice.” Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar System, Inc., Case
`
`IPR 2018-01511, Paper 11 (January 31, 2019); See also, Cisco Systems, Inc. v.
`
`Chrimar System, Inc., Case IPR 2018-01514, Paper 10 (February 4, 2019); Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar System, Inc., Case IPR 2018-01508, Paper 11 (January 31,
`
`2019).
`
`HP’s effort to distinguish “civil action” from “complaint” to avoid the Federal
`
`Circuit directives is unavailing. The two go hand-in-hand, as Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 make
`
`clear: “A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” The PTAB
`
`has also confirmed that no distinction exists: “When the statute [§315(a)(1)] refers
`
`to filing a civil action, it refers to filing a complaint with a court to commence a
`
`civil action.” Noven Pharms., Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2014-00549, Paper 10, at 6-7
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00033
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`(PTAB Oct. 14, 2014).
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0123IPR1
`
`HP does not deny that its filing of the declaratory judgment complaint
`
`triggered the bar of §315(a)(1)—i.e., it does not deny that the bar would be in effect
`
`had HP not later dismissed the complaint. HP contends that subsequent events can
`
`eliminate the bar, a contention the Federal Circuit expressly rejected in Bennett
`
`Regulator: “We recently held that serving a complaint alleging infringement—an
`
`act unchanged by the complaint’s subsequent success or failure—unambiguously
`
`implicates §315(b)’s time bar.” Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light
`
`Co., 905 F.3d 1311, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2018), citing Click-to-Call Techs., LP v.
`
`Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1329–32 (Fed. Cir. 2018). More pointedly, the Federal
`
`Circuit held, “The statute endorses no exceptions for dismissed complaints . . . . .”
`
`Id. at 1315. Section 315(a)(1) states, without exceptions, “[a]n inter partes review
`
`may not be instituted if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is
`
`filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the
`
`validity of a claim of the patent.” Unquestionably, Bennett Regulator’s holding
`
`applies equally to §315(a)(1) because filing a civil action — “an act unchanged by
`
`the complaint’s subsequent success or failure” — unambiguously implicates
`
`§315(a)’s time bar. Bennett Regulator, 905 F.3d at 1314-15. In golf vernacular, the
`
`statute does not allow HP to take a Mulligan.
`
`Section 315(a)(1) is more stringent—not less—than §315(b) because, under
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00033
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`§315(a)(1), the mere filing of a complaint—and nothing more—is enough to activate
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0123IPR1
`
`the bar. Thus, Click-to-Call and Bennett Regulator apply even more so to
`
`§315(a)(1). This makes sense because, unlike the time bar of §315(b), which the
`
`patent owner triggers by serving a complaint to a potentially unsuspecting
`
`defendant, the challenger triggers the bar of §315(a)(1) by filing a civil action,
`
`presumably after evaluating the ramifications of the statute. In HP’s case, its filing
`
`of complaints against Chrimar’s patents was no accident.
`
`The statute is clear. The Federal Circuit cases are clear. The PTAB’s prior
`
`decisions are clear. Dismissing a complaint after filing and serving it (voluntarily
`
`or otherwise) does not “un-ring” the bar triggered by the filing/service of the
`
`complaint. The Board should deny HP’s Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 6, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00033
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0123IPR1
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 6, 2019, a complete and
`entire copy of PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO ITS PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.107, was served on all counsel listed below via electronic mail as
`follows:
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Hersh H. Mehta - Reg. No. 62,336
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: 312.324.1000
`F: 312.324.1001
`hersh.mehta@morganlewis.com
`HPE-Chrimar-IPR@morganlewis.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Brent A. Hawkins - Reg. No. 44,146
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`One Market, Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`T: 415.442.1000
`F: 415.442.1001
`brent.hawkins@morganlewis.com
`
`Maria E. Doukas - Reg. No. 67,084
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: 312.324.1000
`F: 312.324.1001
`maria.doukas@morganlewis.com
`
`Karon N. Fowler
`(pro hac vice application to be
`submitted)
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`T: 650.843.4000
`F: 650.843.4001
`karon.fowler@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2019-00033
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0123IPR1
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`
`
`
`This paper complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24.
`
`The paper contains 622 words, excluding the parts of the paper exempted by
`
`§42.24(a).
`
`This paper also complies with the typeface requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(ii) and the type style requirements of § 42.6(a)(iii)&(iv).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 6, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
