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 No. IPR2019-00033
`Patent No. 8,902,760
`___________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`___________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`Case No. IPR2019-00033
`Patent No. 8,902,760
`___________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................. 2
`II.
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The Board Misapprehends the Impact of Voluntarily
`Dismissing a Declaratory Judgment Action on § 315(a)(1) ................. 2
`The Board Misapprehends the Applicability of the Federal
`Circuit’s Decision in Click-To-Call on § 315(a)(1) .............................. 4
`PRECEDENTIAL OPINION PANEL REVIEW IS APPROPRIATE
`IN THIS CASE ................................................................................................ 6
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 7
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 1
`Avigilon Corp. v. Canon Inc.,
`IPR2018-01626 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2019) ....................................................... 6, 7
`Avigilon Corp. v. Canon Inc.,
`IPR2018-01627 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2019) ........................................................... 6
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2018-01508 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019) ............................................................ 6
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2018-01511 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019) ............................................................ 6
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2018-01514 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2019) .............................................................. 6
`Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc) ...................................................passim
`Graves v. Principi,
`294 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 3, 4, 6
`Incyte Corp. v. Concert Pharm., Inc.,
`IPR2017-01256, Paper 13, 3 (PTAB Apr. 9, 2018) ............................................. 2
`Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys.,
`223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 4
`Mylan Pharm. Inc. v. Horizon Pharma USA, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01995 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019) ........................................................... 6
`Ruiz Food Prods., Inc. v. MacroPoint LLC,
`IPR2017-02016, -02018 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019) .............................................. 6
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .............................................................................................. 1, 2
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) ..................................................... 3, 4
`Rule 41(a) ................................................................................................................... 6
`Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) ........................................................................................ 1
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner, Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`
`Company (“HPE”), respectfully requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper 11) (hereinafter, “Decision”). In its
`
`Decision, the Board held that HPE’s Petition is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1)
`
`due to Hewlett-Packard Company (“HPCo.”) and Aruba Networks, Inc. (“Aruba”)1
`
`previously filing declaratory judgment actions challenging the validity of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,902,760 (“the ‘760 Patent”). Paper 11 at 8; see also Paper 2 at 8-9. The
`
`Decision, however, should be reversed, as the Board misapprehends (i) the impact
`
`of the voluntary dismissal of HPCo. and Aruba’s declaratory judgment actions under
`
`Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before HPE filed its Petition and (ii) the applicability of the
`
`Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc), to § 315(a)(1).
`
`HPE further requests that this rehearing be heard by the Precedential Opinion
`
`1 Based on the Federal Circuit decision Applications in Internet Time, LLC v.
`
`RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and to satisfy the requirement set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), HPE identified HP Inc. and Aruba as real
`
`parties-in-interest to its IPR petition. Paper 2 at 1-2. HPCo. is the former name
`
`of HP Inc. Paper 2 at 8, n.5.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Panel (“POP”), as the Board’s decision deals with the following “issues of
`
`exceptional importance”: (i) the statutory interpretation of § 315(a)(1) and (ii) the
`
`applicability of Click-To-Call to § 315(a)(1). See PTAB Standard Operating
`
`Procedure 2, Rev. 10 at Section II(A).
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.71(d), a party may request rehearing of a decision
`
`by the Board regarding whether to institute trial. “The request must specifically
`
`identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and
`
`the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or
`
`a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The standard of review for rehearing a decision on
`
`petition is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion may
`
`arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding
`
`is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in
`
`weighing relevant factors.” Incyte Corp. v. Concert Pharm., Inc., IPR2017-01256,
`
`Paper 13, 3 (PTAB Apr. 9, 2018) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000)).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`The Board Misapprehends the Impact of Voluntarily Dismissing a
`Declaratory Judgment Action on § 315(a)(1)
`In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review finding that
`
`the previously filed declaratory judgment actions challenging the validity of the ‘760
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent, which were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, barred institution under
`
`§ 315(a)(1).2 Paper 11 at 7-8. In particular, the Board held that “the ordinary
`
`meaning of the phrase ‘filed a civil action’ [in § 315(a)(1)] only requires that a party
`
`commenced a noncriminal litigation, not that the party engaged in any substantive
`
`litigation.” Paper 11 at 6-7. This interpretation of the statutory language, however,
`
`misapprehends the impact of a party’s voluntary dismissal of a civil action pursuant
`
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
`
`As HPE explained in its Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`(“Reply”, Paper 9), “federal courts deem a civil action dismissed without prejudice
`
`as ‘something that de jure never existed.’” Paper 9 at 2-3 (citing Holloway v. U.S.,
`
`60 Fed. Cl. 254, 261 (2004), aff’d 143 F. App’x 313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The dismissal
`
`of HPCo.’s and Aruba’s declaratory judgment actions without prejudice, which
`
`occurred before HPE filed its Petition, thus effectively “le[ft] the parties as though
`
`the action had never been brought.” See Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1356
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2367,
`
`2 Section 315(a)(1) states “[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.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`559 (3d ed. 2008) (identifying that all nine Circuits addressing this issue reached the
`
`same conclusion). It also preserved the parties’ ability to later sue the same
`
`defendant on the same claim. See Paper 9 at 3; Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys.,
`
`223 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`For § 315(a)(1) to apply, the petitioner, or real party in interest, must have
`
`“filed a civil action” before the date on which an inter partes review petition is filed.
`
`As the Board noted in its Decision, the ordinary meaning of the term “file” is “[t]o
`
`commence a lawsuit.” Paper 11 at 6. Here, no prior lawsuit has commenced because
`
`the voluntary dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before any substantive activity
`
`occurred, nullified the actions’ existence and are deemed to have left the parties as
`
`“though the action[s] had never been brought.” See Graves, 294 F.3d at 1356. Thus,
`
`§ 315(a)(1) is inapplicable, and the Board’s Decision should be reversed.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Misapprehends the Applicability of the Federal
`Circuit’s Decision in Click-To-Call on § 315(a)(1)
`The Board’s denial of HPE’s Petition relied on the application of the Federal
`
`Circuit’s decision in Click-to-Call. Paper 11 at *6-7. The Board misapprehended
`
`the applicability of Click-To-Call, however, because Click-to-Call dealt specifically
`
`with § 315(b) and its holding should not be extended to apply to § 315(a)(1).
`
`As HPE also explained in its Reply, in previous cases, the Board has
`
`consistently and correctly determined that § 315(a)(1) is not triggered when a
`
`declaratory judgment action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before the
`4
`
`
`
`IPR petition is filed. Paper 9 at 4 (citing Resmed Ltd. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare
`
`Ltd., IPR2016-01714, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017); Tristar Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Choon’s Design, LLC, IPR2015-01883, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016); Emerson
`
`Elec. Co. v. Sipco, LLC, IPR2015-01579, Paper 7 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2016)
`
`(“[f]ederal courts treat a civil action that is dismissed without prejudice as
`
`‘something that de jure never existed,’ ‘leav[ing] the parties as though the action had
`
`never been brought” and concluding a “previously filed DJ action [including a claim
`
`of invalidity] does not bar Petitioner from filing the Petition”)). In its Decision, the
`
`Board acknowledges that it has previously held the voluntary dismissal of a
`
`declaratory judgment action does not bar a Petitioner from filing a Petition. Paper
`
`11 at 5, n.1. Yet it misapprehends the applicability of the Federal Circuit’s decision
`
`in Click-To-Call and applies it to the facts of this case to seemingly overturn its
`
`previous opinions.
`
`As the Board recognized in its Decision, Click-To-Call addresses the meaning
`
`of the language “served with a complaint” in § 315(b). Paper 11 at 5, n.1; Paper 11
`
`at 7. On the contrary, the section at issue here—§ 315(a)(1)—is crucially distinct.
`
`Paper 9 at 5-6. Unlike § 315(b), which focuses on when a party is “served with a
`
`complaint,” § 315(a) is predicated on “fil[ing] a civil action challenging the validity
`
`of a claim of the patent.” Id. Although neither a voluntary nor an involuntary
`
`dismissal can undo a party being “served with a complaint,” a voluntary dismissal
`
`5
`
`
`
`under Rule 41(a) nullifies the “fil[ing] of a civil action” as a matter of law. Id. at 6;
`
`see Graves, 294 F.3d at 1356. Thus, Click-To-Call should not be interpreted as
`
`extending to § 315(a)(1), and the Board’s decision to deny institution of HPE’s
`
`Petition should be reversed.
`
`IV. PRECEDENTIAL OPINION PANEL REVIEW IS APPROPRIATE IN
`THIS CASE
`The POP may be convened to address issues of exceptional importance
`
`regarding statutes or issues of broad applicability to the Board. PTAB Standard
`
`Operating Procedure 2, Rev. 10 at Section II(A). The issues presented in this case
`
`are thus proper for POP review, as they deal with the statutory interpretation of
`
`§ 315(a)(1) in light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-To-Call. The impact
`
`of this interpretation has broad applicability in light of the numerous Board decisions
`
`applying Click-To-Call to § 315(a)(1) to deny institution. See, e.g., Mylan Pharm.
`
`Inc. v. Horizon Pharma USA, Inc., IPR2017-01995 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019);
`
`Avigilon Corp. v. Canon Inc., IPR2018-01626 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2019); Avigilon
`
`Corp. v. Canon Inc., IPR2018-01627 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2019); Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc., IPR2018-01514 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2019); Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc., IPR2018-01511 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019) Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc., IPR2018-01508 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019); Ruiz Food Prods., Inc.
`
`v. MacroPoint LLC, IPR2017-02016, -02018 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019). Indeed, this
`
`same issue has already been raised for the POP in at least two other cases. See Ruiz
`6
`
`
`
`Food Products Inc. v. MacroPoint LLC, IPR2017-02016, -02018; Avigilon Corp. v.
`
`Canon Inc., IPR2018-01626.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed above, HPE respectfully requests that POP review
`
`be undertaken to address the issues presented herein and that the Board’s Decision
`
`denying institution be reversed.
`
`Date: April 29, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Hersh H. Mehta/
`Hersh H. Mehta
`Reg. No. 62,336
`
`7
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify this document was filed via E2E and served on all Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel of record via electronic mail as follows:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Telephone (248) 358-4400
`Facsimile (248) 358-3351
`fangileri@brookskushman.com
`CHRMC0123IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`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
`Telephone (248) 358-4400
`Facsimile (248) 358-3351
`tlewry@brookskushman.com
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`csmith@brookskushman.com
`
`Dated: April 29, 2019
`
`
`
`/Hersh H. Mehta/
`Hersh H. Mehta
`
`
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
