`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: March 28, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2019-00033
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00033
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 73, 106, 112,
`134, 142, 145, and 146 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,902,760 B2 (Ex. 1004, “the ’760 patent”). Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) to
`the Petition. Also, as authorized, Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 9, “Reply”)
`to the Preliminary Response, and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 10,
`“Sur-reply”) to the Reply.
`An inter partes review “may not be instituted if, before the date on
`which the petition for such review is filed, the petitioner or real party in
`interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.”
`35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1). The information presented shows that Petitioner filed
`a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the ’760 patent before the
`date on which the Petition was filed. Therefore, the Petition is denied, and
`no trial is instituted.
`A.
`Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’760 patent is the subject of several cases
`in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and the United
`States District Court for the Northern District of California. Pet. 2–6;
`Paper 5, 1–2. The parties also indicate that the ’760 patent was the subject
`of Reexamination No. 90/013,802, and the subject of petitions for inter
`partes review in IPR2016-00574, IPR2016-01399, IPR2016-01759,
`IPR2017-00719, and IPR2018-01511. Pet. 2–3; Paper 5, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00033
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`B.
`The ’760 Patent
`The ’760 patent relates to a system for managing, tracking, and
`identifying remotely located electronic equipment. Ex. 1004, 1:27–30.
`According to the ’760 patent, one of the difficulties in managing a
`computerized office environment is keeping track of a company’s electronic
`assets. Id. at 1:32–57. Previous systems for tracking electronic assets
`suffered from several deficiencies. Id. at 1:62–65. For example, previous
`systems could not determine the connection status or physical location of an
`asset and could only track assets that were powered-up. Id. at 1:65–2:2.
`To address these deficiencies, the ’760 patent describes a system for
`tracking an electronic asset. Id. at 2:3–6, 3:23–27. In one embodiment
`described in the ’760 patent, the system includes a central module and a
`remote module. Id. at 3:27–30. The remote module attaches to the
`electronic asset and transmits a low frequency signal. Id. A receiver in the
`central module monitors the signal transmitted by the remote module and
`determines if the status or location of the electronic asset changes. Id. at
`3:30–32, 3:34–40.
`C.
`Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 73 and 146 are independent.
`
`Claim 73, as amended during reexamination, is reproduced below.
`73. A BaseT Ethernet system comprising:
`Ethernet cabling having at least first and second
`individual pairs of conductors used to carry BaseT Ethernet
`communication signals, the at least first and second individual
`pairs of conductors physically connect between a piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and a piece of central
`network equipment,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00033
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`the piece of central network equipment is a BaseT
`Ethernet hub;
`the piece of central network equipment having at least
`one DC supply,
`the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment having at
`least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow via
`the at least one DC supply through a loop formed over at least
`one of the conductors of the first pair of conductors and at least
`one of the conductors of the second pair of conductors,
`the piece of central network equipment to detect at least
`two different magnitudes of current flow through the loop.
`Ex. 1004, 21:37–52; Ex. 1035, 1:23–2:4.
`D.
`Evidence of Record
`Petitioner submits the following references and declaration (Pet. 13):
`Reference or Declaration
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1001
`Declaration of George Zimmerman (“Zimmerman
`Declaration”)
`The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995 (1995) (“IEEE 802.3-1995”)
`The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
`IEEE Standard 802.3-1993 (1993) (“IEEE 802.3-1993”)
`Bloch et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 (issued Nov. 6,
`1979) (“Bloch”)
`Nelson, U.S. Patent No. 4,823,070 (issued Apr. 18, 1989)
`(“Nelson”)
`Bulan et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 (issued Feb. 18,
`1992) (“Bulan”)
`Hunter et al., PCT Publication No. WO 96/23377
`(published Aug. 1, 1996) (“Hunter”)
`Peguiron, Swiss Patent No. CH 643 095 A5 (issued May
`15, 1984) (“Peguiron”)
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00033
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`References
`Hunter and Bulan
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`E.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following grounds (Pet. 13):
`Claim(s)
`Basis
`73, 106, 112, 134,
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`142, and 145
`146
`146
`
`Hunter, Bulan, and Nelson
`Bloch, IEEE 802.3-1993, IEEE
`802.3-1995, and Peguiron
`II. ANALYSIS
`An inter partes review “may not be instituted if, before the date on
`which the petition for such review is filed, the petitioner or real party in
`interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.”
`35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1). Petitioner previously filed a civil action challenging
`the validity of a claim of the ’760 patent. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 1; Ex. 2001
`¶¶ 1, 76–81. Petitioner argues, though, that § 315(a)(1) does not bar
`institution of an inter partes review because Petitioner voluntarily dismissed
`its previous civil action without prejudice. Pet. 9 (citing Emerson Elec. Co.
`v. SIPCO, LLC, Case IPR2015-01579, slip op. at 2−3 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2016)
`(Paper 7)).1
`
`
`1 In Emerson, a panel of the Board held in a non-precedential decision that
`the § 315(a)(1) bar does not apply when a petitioner dismissed its previous
`civil action without prejudice because “[f]ederal courts treat a civil action
`that is dismissed without prejudice as ‘something that de jure never
`existed.’” Emerson, Case IPR2015-01579, slip op. at 2−3 (Paper 7).
`Subsequently, in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d
`1321, 1328 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit held that the
`§ 315(b) time bar applies even when a previous civil action was dismissed
`voluntarily without prejudice. This Decision addresses the § 315(a)(1) bar
`in light of the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the § 315(b) time bar.
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00033
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Section 315(a)(1), titled “Inter Partes Review Barred by Civil
`Action,” bars institution of an inter partes review when a petitioner filed a
`civil action challenging the validity of a claim of a patent before the date on
`which that petitioner filed a petition requesting an inter partes review of that
`patent. 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1). Section 315(a)(1) does not include an
`exception for a civil action that was dismissed without prejudice. Id.; see
`Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d at 1330. And Congress demonstrated that it knew
`how to provide an exception to a statutory bar by including an exception to
`the § 315(b) time bar for a joinder request. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); see Click-to-
`Call, 899 F.3d at 1331. Thus, Congress could have included an exception to
`the § 315(a)(1) bar for a civil action that was dismissed without prejudice,
`but did not. 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1); see Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d at 1331.
`Further, the ordinary meanings of the terms “file” and “civil action”
`show that the phrase “filed a civil action” in § 315(a)(1) applies to a civil
`action that was dismissed without prejudice. Black’s Law Dictionary
`defines “file” as “[t]o commence a lawsuit,” and defines “civil action” as
`“[a]n action brought to enforce, redress, or protect a private or civil right; a
`noncriminal litigation.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014). These
`definitions indicate that the § 315(a)(1) bar is implicated once a party
`commences a noncriminal litigation, irrespective of subsequent events. Id.;
`see Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d at 1330.
`Petitioner argues that § 315(a)(1) does not bar institution of an inter
`partes review because Petitioner voluntarily dismissed its previous civil
`action without prejudice “before any substantive activity occurred.” Reply
`1–3. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed, the ordinary
`meaning of the phrase “filed a civil action” only requires that a party
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00033
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`commenced a noncriminal litigation, not that the party engaged in any
`substantive litigation. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014).
`Petitioner argues that “federal courts deem a civil action dismissed
`without prejudice as ‘something that de jure never existed’” in order to
`“preserve[] a plaintiff’s ability to later sue the same defendant on the same
`claim.” Reply 3. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. “A voluntary
`dismissal without prejudice only leaves the dismissed action without legal
`effect for some purposes; for many other purposes, the dismissed action
`continues to have legal effect.” Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d at 1335. Because
`the background legal principle relied on by Petitioner is “anything but
`equivocal,” it does not “transform[] the ordinary meaning of the phrase
`[‘filed a civil action’] into something else.” Id. Further, this Decision does
`not hold that § 315(a)(1) bars Petitioner from filing another civil action
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ’760 patent.
`Petitioner argues that Click-to-Call addresses the meaning of the
`phrase “served with a complaint” in § 315(b), not the phrase “filed a civil
`action” in § 315(a)(1). Pet. 9–10; Reply 4–6. Petitioner’s argument is not
`persuasive. Click-to-Call explained that “[t]he ‘ordinary, contemporary,
`common meaning[s]’ of the operative terms ‘served’ and ‘complaint’
`support the understanding that it is wholly irrelevant to the § 315(b) inquiry
`whether the civil action in which the complaint was filed is later voluntarily
`dismissed without prejudice.” Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d at 1330. Similarly, as
`discussed, the ordinary meaning of the phrase “filed a civil action” indicates
`that the § 315(a)(1) bar is implicated once a party commenced a noncriminal
`litigation, irrespective of subsequent events.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00033
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`For these reasons, § 315(a)(1) bars institution of an inter partes
`review even though Petitioner voluntarily dismissed its earlier civil action
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ’760 patent without prejudice.
`III. CONCLUSION
`The information presented shows that Petitioner filed a civil action
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ’760 patent before the date on
`which Petitioner filed the Petition. Therefore, the Petition is denied under
`§ 315(a)(1).
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00033
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Hersh H. Mehta
`Brent A. Hawkins
`Maria E. Doukas
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`hersh.mehta@morganlewis.com
`brent.hawkins@morganlewis.com
`maria.doukas@morganlewis.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`Thomas A. Lewry
`Marc Lorelli
`Christopher C. Smith
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`fangileri@brookskushman.com
`tlewry@brookskushman.com
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`csmith@brookskushman.com
`
`9
`
`