Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Date: February 20, 2020
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BENTLEY MOTORS LIMITED AND BENTLEY MOTORS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JAGUAR LAND ROVER LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. BACKGROUND
`Bentley Motors Limited and Bentley Motors, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed
`a petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 21,
`24, 30, 32–34, 37, 39, 41–43, 45, and 46 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. RE46,828 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’828 patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Date: February 20, 2020
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BENTLEY MOTORS LIMITED AND BENTLEY MOTORS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JAGUAR LAND ROVER LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. BACKGROUND
`Bentley Motors Limited and Bentley Motors, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed
`a petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 21,
`24, 30, 32–34, 37, 39, 41–43, 45, and 46 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. RE46,828 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’828 patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`Jaguar Land Rover Limited (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to our authorization,
`Petitioner filed a Reply to the Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Reply”) and
`Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 8, “Sur-Reply).
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims as follows:
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`30, 32
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`
`959 Art1
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`959 Art, Expedition Guide2/GB ’5803
`
`103
`33, 34, 41, 42
`
`1Manfred Bantle & Helmutt Bott, Der Porsche Typ 959 – Gruppe B – ein
`besonders Automobil – Teil 1, AUTOMOBILTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT, vol. 88,
`no. 5 (May 1986) (Ex. 1002A, “959 Article Part 1”); Manfred Bantle &
`Helmutt Bott, Der Porsche Typ 959 – Gruppe B – ein besonders Automobil
`– Teil 2, AUTOMOBILTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT, vol. 88, no. 6 (June 1986)
`(Ex. 1002B, “959 Article Part 2”); Manfred Bantle & Helmutt Bott, Der
`Porsche Typ 959 – Gruppe B – ein besonders Automobil – Teil 3,
`AUTOMOBILTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT, vol. 88, no. 7/8 (July 1986)
`(Ex. 1002C, , “959 Article Part 3”); Manfred Bantle & Helmutt Bott, Der
`Porsche Typ 959 – Gruppe B – ein besonders Automobil – Teil 4,
`AUTOMOBILTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT, vol. 88, no. 9 (August 1986)
`(Ex. 1002D, “959 Article Part 4”); Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Porsche 959
`Driver’s Manual (Ex. 1003, “959 Manual”) (collectively, “959 Art”).
`2 Ford Motor Co., 1997 Ford Expedition Owner’s Guide (Ex. 1007,
`“Expedition Guide”).
`3 GB 2,273,580 A (Ex. 1005, “GB ’580”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`37, 39
`
`45
`
`46
`
`21, 24, 43
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`959 Art, Bourdon4
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`959 Art, BMW 7-Series
`Manual5/GB ’580
`
`959 Art, Gallery6
`
`959 Art, Hummer Article7
`
`For the reasons expressed below, we determine that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing that at least one claim
`is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review of the
`’828 patent.
`B. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The parties identified as a related proceeding the co-pending district
`court proceeding of Jaguar Land Rover Limited v. Bentley Motors Limited
`and Bentley Motors, Inc., Civ. No. 2:18-cv-320 (E.D. Va.). Pet. 68;
`Paper 5, 1. Petitioner identifies a continuation application, U.S. Application
`S/N 15/949,385 (currently stayed). Pet. 68. Lastly, Patent Owner also
`identifies currently-pending IPR2019-01539 in which Petitioner also
`challenges claims of the ’828 patent. Paper 5, 1.
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,044,318 (Ex. 1006, “Bourdon”).
`5 BMW AG, 2001 7-Series Owner’s Manual (Ex. 1008, “BMW 7-Series
`Manual”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,941,614 (Ex. 1026, “Gallery”).
`7 H2’s Premium Powertrain (Ex. 1014E, “Hummer Article”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`C. THE ’828 PATENT
`The ’828 patent, entitled “Vehicle Control,” describes and claims “a
`vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems
`each of which is operable in a plurality of subsystem configuration modes,
`wherein the vehicle control system is operable in a plurality of driving
`modes in each of which it is arranged to select the subsystem configuration
`modes in a manner suitable for a respective driving surface.” Ex. 1001, code
`(54), 2:3–9. The Background of the Invention states that, before the
`invention, “drivers often encounter[ed] a broad range of surfaces and terrains
`in both on-road and off-road settings,” but prior art control systems did not
`allow a driver to “provide direct input regarding the surface terrain” to
`optimize the selection of “appropriate subsystem configuration modes” for
`different terrains. Id. at 1:47–55. The ’828 patent contends that the
`increasingly large number of configuration choices was “complicated and
`confusing” to all but “very experienced” drivers. Id. at 1:36–40. As a result,
`prior art control systems delivered “less than optimal stability, handling, and
`safety performance.” Id. at 1:55–61. Thus, “there [wa]s a need for an
`integrated control system” that “provide[d] improved control of the vehicle
`on a broad range of surfaces.” Id. at 1:57–61.
`The “Summary of Invention” explains that “the present invention
`provides a vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle
`subsystems.” Id. at 2:3–5. Figure 4 (reproduced below) shows the vehicle
`control system “controlling the subsystems.” ’828 patent 5:29–30.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ’828 patent, which is a diagram, shows the
`various controllers and subsystems. Id. at Fig. 4.
`Figure 4 shows driver input device (99), processor based vehicle mode
`controller for providing the appropriate control commands to each
`subsystem controller (98), and a plurality of vehicle subsystems, including
`engine management system 28, transmission controller 30, steering
`controller 48, brakes controller 62, and suspension controller 82. Id. at
`9:44–49.
`
`The ’828 patent also describes other subsystems. For example, the
`’828 patent explains that “[p]referably one of the subsystems comprises a
`differential system operable to provide to a plurality of levels of differential
`lock.” Id. at 2:64–66. “The differential may be a center differential, a front
`differential or a rear differential.” Id. at 3:5-6. The transmission sends drive
`torque to the center differential. Id. at 5:57–60. The center differential then
`transmits drive torque to the front and rear differentials, and the front and
`rear differentials transmit the torque to the front and rear wheels of the car.
`Id. at 5:60–62.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`The ’828 patent describes that the driver rotates rotary knob 99 to
`select one of a plurality of driving modes or surfaces. Id. at 9:59–62. The
`driving modes or surfaces selectable by the driver can include Grass, Sand,
`Rock Crawl and Mud. Id. at 9:59–10:5, 13:19–23, 16:57–59, Fig. 13. Once
`the driver selects a mode, the vehicle controller “controls the configuration
`modes of operation of each of the subsystem controllers.” Id. at 9:43–58,
`2:3–9.
`The ’828 patent describes a vehicle with center, rear, and front
`differentials. Id. at 5:57–63. In this embodiment, transmission controller 30
`controls the transmission ratio of automatic transmission 20, and the
`selection of high or low range in the transfer box 21. Id. at 6:1–3.
`Transmission controller 30 also controls center differential 22 so as to
`control the distribution of drive torque between the front and rear axles, and
`the rear differential 26 so as to control the distribution of drive torque
`between the two rear wheels 13, 14. Id. at 6:3–7. The transmission
`controller 30 could also control the distribution of drive torque between the
`front two wheels 13, 14. Id. at 6:7–9. The ’828 patent explains:
`Center differential 22 and the rear differential 26 each include a
`clutch pack and are controllable to vary the degree of locking
`between a “fully open” and a “fully locked” state. The actual
`degree of locking at any one time is controlled on the basis of a
`number of factors in a known manner, but the control can be
`adjusted so that the differentials are “more open” or “more
`locked.” Specifically the pre-load on the clutch pack can be
`varied which in turn controls the locking torque, i.e. the torque
`across the differential that will cause the clutch, and hence the
`differential, to slip. The front differential could also be
`controlled in the same way.
`Id. at 9:33–43.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`Claims 21, 30, 37, 41, 45, and 46 are the independent claims among
`the challenged claims, and claim 30, which is representative, recites:
`30. [BC.1] A vehicle control system having a driver input device
`for selecting a driving surface,
`[BC.2] the vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality
`of vehicle subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality
`of subsystem configuration modes,
`[BC.3] wherein the vehicle control system is operable in a
`plurality of driving modes in each of which it is arranged to
`select the subsystem configuration modes in a manner
`suitable for a respective driving surface,
`[BC.4] and further wherein the plurality of driving modes
`includes at least two off-road modes in which the subsystem
`configurations are controlled in a manner suitable for driving
`on respective off-road driving surfaces, and an on-road mode
`in which the subsystem configurations are controlled in a
`manner suitable for driving on-road,
`and still further, wherein the driver input device comprises a
`selector for selecting the plurality of driving modes in the
`order of the on-road driving mode, a first off-road mode and
`a second off-road mode.
`Id. at 21:33–49 (with labels used by parties added within brackets).8
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`We interpret claims in the same manner used in a civil action under
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`
`
`8 Limitations BC.1–BC.4 are found in all of the challenged independent
`claims. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 148. The last limitation and paragraph is not given a
`label by the parties. See Pet. 26.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019).9 Only terms that are in controversy need to
`be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`We discern no terms in need of express interpretation to determine
`whether to institute inter partes review. At this stage of the proceeding, we
`merely apply the legal standards set forth above when reading the claims.
`B. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 21, 24, 30, 32–34, 37,
`39, 41–43, 45, and 46 on the grounds that the claims are obvious. Pet. 16–
`67. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set
`forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court
`summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in
`determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: (1) determining the scope and
`content of the prior art, (2) ascertaining the differences between the prior art
`and the claims at issue, (3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the
`pertinent art, and (4) considering objective evidence indicating obviousness
`
`
`9 On October 11, 2018, the USPTO revised its rules to harmonize the
`Board’s claim construction standard with that used in federal district court.
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
`Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340
`(Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). This rule change applies
`to the instant Petition because it was filed after November 13, 2018. See id.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`or nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we
`address each challenge below.
`C. PORSCHE 959 (“959 ART”)
`All of the Petitioner’s challenges rely, at least in part, on a group of
`five references related to the Porsche 959, which Petitioner collectively
`refers to as the 959 Art. See Pet. 5. One of the five references is a driver’s
`manual from a Porsche 959 (Ex. 1003), and the remaining four references
`are a four-part magazine article published in a German automotive
`engineering magazine over four months from May to August 1986
`(Exs. 1002A–1002D).10
`The Porsche 959 was a sportscar designed and sold by Porsche in the
`1980s. See Ex. 1002A, 265; Ex. 2026, 2–3 (describing the development of
`the Porsche 959); Ex. 2027, 2 (history of the Porsche 959). The Porsche 959
`was designed to compete in Group B—a rally racing group with a minimum
`production volume of 200 vehicles in any year and weight and tire
`requirements based on engine displacement—and to be used for gathering
`new insights for future Porsche high-performance products. Ex. 1002A,
`265. The Porsche 959 included many auxiliary systems “in order to allow
`drivers to safely, easily and comfortably handle a driving performance that
`had previously only been available in racing vehicles.” Id. at 266. A picture
`of the front-view of the Porsche 959 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`10 Petitioner includes English translations of the original German magazine
`articles. See Exs. 1002A–1002D. All citations are to the English
`translations. We cite the page numbers in the lower left-hand corner of
`Exs. 1002A–1002D.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`
`
`
`A picture of the front view of a Porsche 959 is reproduced above.
`Ex. 1002A, 265.
`The Porsche 959 includes an electro-hydraulically regulated all-wheel
`drive control system. Ex. 1003, 52. “On the basis of the program selected
`the control unit for all-wheel drive processes engine output, roadwheel speed
`with other variables outputting the values for inter-axle coupling (percentage
`of torque to the front axel) and rear-axle slip limiter (rear limited-slip
`differential).” Id. “The values are passed to electro-hydraulic positioning
`motors which produce the pressures required to compress the plates in [the]
`inter-axle coupling and rear-axle slip limiter.” The Porsche 959 “has four
`programs [“Traction,” “Ice, snow,” “Wet,” and “Dry”] which can be
`selected to suit road conditions or task in hand by moving a stalk on the
`steering column.” Id. The selected program is displayed in the instrument
`panel by illumination of one of the four lights arranged vertically down the
`center of the instrument display as shown in Figure 23 of Ex. 1002B
`(reproduced below).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`
`
`
`Figure 23 of Ex. 1002B shows the display for the Porsche Drive
`Control in the Porsche 959, including the four modes (from top to bottom in
`the center of the display) of Traction, Ice, snow, Wet, and Dry.
`Ex. 1002B, 356.
`
`
`D. OBVIOUSNESS OF THE BASE CLAIM LIMITATIONS IN VIEW OF 959
`ART
`Petitioner argues that the teachings of 959 Art render claims 30 and 32
`unpatentable as obvious. Pet. 19–28. In particular, Petitioner argues that the
`959 Art teaches or suggests all of the so-called Base Claim limitations
`(BC.1–BC.4, as labeled in claim 30 above). Id. at 19–26. Patent Owner
`argues, among other things, that the 959 Art fails to describe a vehicle
`control system “arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems,” as
`recited in limitation BC.2 of claim 30. See Prelim. Resp. 14–22. We agree
`with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`likelihood of proving that the 959 Art teaches a vehicle control system
`“arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems,” as recited in
`limitation BC.2 of claim 30.
`Petitioner relies on the drive control system of the Porsche 959 as
`teaching the claimed vehicle control system. Pet. 19–20. In particular,
`Petitioner points to the “function drive controller,” the “interaxle
`differential” and “lateral lock” of the Porsche 959 as describing the claimed
`“vehicle control system” and “plurality of vehicle subsystems” recited in
`limitation BC.2. Pet. 19–21. Petitioner asserts that the first subsystem is the
`interaxle differential, which “regulates the amount of torque distributed to
`the front wheels ‘in a plurality of subsystem configuration modes.’” Id.
`at 21 (citing Ex. 1002B, 356; Ex. 1004 ¶ 44). Petitioner submits that “[t]he
`control system adopts a different torque distribution depending on the
`selected driving mode, and other variables such as speed.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 45). Petitioner contends the second subsystem is the rear-axle
`slip limiter, for adjusting lateral lock, which “controls a clutch pack
`integrated into the rear axle housing, locking the two rear axles, and forcing
`the rear wheels to spin at the same rate.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 46).
`Petitioner argues that “[t]he vehicle will adopt a different percentage of lock
`depending on the selected driving mode, and other variables such as speed.”
`Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1002B, 356). Petitioner submits that “[t]hese
`subsystems are analogous to the center differential and rear differential
`subsystems listed at the bottom of Figs. 5 and 6 in the ’828 patent.” Id. at 23
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 48).
`However, as Patent Owner explains, the center, rear, and front
`differential are treated as a single subsystem in the ’828 patent. See Prelim.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`Resp. 14–22; Ex. 1001, 2:64–66, 3:5–6, 5:57–62, claim 35. Indeed, the ’828
`patent acknowledges that the partial locking of differentials to suit the
`driving conditions was known in the art. See Ex. 1001, 1:33–35. It further
`describes that “one of the subsystems comprises a differential system
`operable to provide a plurality of levels of differential lock, and the
`subsystem configuration modes are arranged to provide different levels of
`said lock.” Id. at 2:64–67. And that “[t]he differential may be a center
`differential, a front differential, or a rear differential.” Id. at 3:5–6; see also
`id. at 9:33–43 (describing the locking of the differentials). We agree with
`Patent Owner, on this record, that all of the examples given in the ’828
`patent treat the differentials as a single subsystem. See Prelim. Resp. 16–17.
`Despite the intrinsic evidence of the patent, neither Petitioner nor its
`declarant provides sufficient explanation why a person of ordinary skill
`would consider the interaxle differential and the lateral lock of the
`Porsche 959 to be separate subsystems as claimed. The Petition provides
`only a conclusion that the interaxle differential and lateral lock of the
`Porsche 959 are separate subsystems, but includes no detailed explanation to
`support that conclusion. Pet. 21 (“The system diagram shows that the two
`subsystems . . . .”). The only evidence that Petitioner cites for its contention
`that the interaxle differential and lateral lock are different “subsystems” is
`the testimony Dr. Glenn R. Bower. See id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 48). Dr.
`Bower’s testimony on this point is
`The interaxle differential and lateral lock in the Porsche 959 are
`separate subsystems. The ’828 patent specification also treats
`these types of subsystems separately. For example, Figures 5
`and 6 in the ’828 patent distinguish between the center
`differential and rear differential lock subsystems.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 48. The only distinction between the center and rear differentials
`in Figures 5 and 6 is that they are in different rows in the charts. See
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 5, 6. However, nothing in Figures 5 or 6 states or describes
`each row in the tables as a separate subsystem nor does the related written
`description describe each row as a separate subsystem. See Ex. 1001, 5:31–
`32, 9:65–10:6, Figs. 5, 6. Dr. Bower does not identify any other support for
`his reading of Figures 5 and 6, so we give this testimony no weight. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying
`facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no
`weight.”). Moreover, contrary to Dr. Bower’s opinion and as discussed
`above, the ’828 patent refers to the front, center, and rear differentials as a
`single subsystem. Id. at 2:64–66, 3:5–6, 5:57–62, claim 35. The lack of any
`explicit support in Figures 5 or 6 coupled with the express statements in the
`’828 patent lead us to discount Dr. Bower’s conclusory testimony that the
`interaxle differential and lateral lock are separate “subsystems” as claimed.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`Without a more detailed explanation or additional evidence to support
`its contention that the interaxle differential and lateral lock of the
`Porsche 959 are separate subsystems, we agree with Patent Owner, on this
`record, that Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the 959
`Art accounts for the limitation that the “vehicle controller” is “arranged to
`control a plurality of vehicle subsystems,” as recited in limitation BC.2 of all
`the challenged claims. Petitioner does not rely on any other teachings of the
`959 Art or any other reference to account for this limitation. Accordingly,
`we determine that Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that
`claims 30 and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the 959 Art.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`E. REMAINING CLAIMS AND GROUNDS
`In its challenges to claims 21, 24, 32–34, 37, 39, 41, 42, 45, and 46,
`Petitioner relies solely upon the teachings of the Porsche 959 Art as
`describing the claimed requirement that “the vehicle control system arranged
`to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems each of which is operable in a
`plurality of subsystem configuration modes.” Pet. 29–67. For the reasons
`expressed in Part II.D above, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to
`establish, on this record, that the Porsche 959 Art describes controlling a
`“plurality of subsystems” in the manner required. Accordingly, we
`determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`establishing that claims 21, 24, 32–34, 37, 39, 41, 42, 45, and 46 are
`unpatentable as obvious.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons expressed above, we determine that Petitioner has
`failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that any claim of
`the ’828 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes
`review of the ’828 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is:
`ORDERED that inter partes review is not instituted for any claim of
`the ’828 patent.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01502
`Patent RE46,828 E
`PETITIONER:
`
`Edgar Haug
`Brian Murphy
`Robert Colletti
`HAUG PARTNERS LLP
`ehaug@haugpartners.com
`bmurphy@haugpartners.com
`rcolletti@haugpartners.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jon Strang
`Clement Naples
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`clement.naples@lw.com
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`
`
`16
`
`
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
