`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ABILITY OPTO-ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01339
`Patent No. 8,988,796
`
`PATENT OWNER LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD.’S PRELIMINARY
`SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-01339
`U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796
`Petitioner’s preliminary reply doesn’t dispute that (a) its petition circum-
`
`vented the Board’s Rules, including by exceeding the word-limit by 3,600 words,
`
`(b) the district court will address substantially the same claims, prior art, and argu-
`
`ments raised in the petition, and (c) the parties have invested 16-plus months and
`
`significant resources contesting the parallel litigation in two district courts. These
`
`undisputed facts—which raise concerns of fairness, inefficiency, and potential con-
`
`flicting decisions—continue to favor discretionary denial. And indeed, the Board
`
`should exercise that discretion based on a balancing of the six Fintiv factors.
`
`Fintiv Factor 1: Petitioner quotes the district court’s statement that it would
`
`likely grant a stay if the Board institutes all three requested IPRs, but ignores other
`
`results short of that outcome. The court hasn’t indicated whether it would likely
`
`grant a stay if the Board institutes fewer than all three IPRs, nor did Petitioner ask
`
`for such guidance. Ex. 1018 at 4. And Petitioner doesn’t commit to moving for a
`
`stay if the Board doesn’t institute all three IPRs. So, with many relevant facts and
`
`circumstances on the potential for a stay still unknown, this factor remains neutral.
`
`Fintiv Factor 2: Consistent with the schedule in the Open Text case (POPR
`
`at 7), the district court may still schedule trial before the projected March 2022
`
`deadline for the Board’s final written decision. But Patent Owner acknowledges
`
`that this isn’t likely, as the parties’ newly-submitted proposed schedules have trial
`
`beginning no earlier than May 2022. As such, this factor now somewhat disfavors
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-01339
`U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796
`
`discretionary denial.
`
`Fintiv Factor 3: It remains undisputed that the parties have invested, and
`
`continue to invest, substantial time and resources in the parallel litigation. Before
`
`the case’s transfer, the parties completed claim construction briefing, produced
`
`over 37,000 documents, responded to over four dozen interrogatories, and fully
`
`briefed motions to dismiss, disqualify, transfer, and compel. POPR at 8-9.
`
`In the new venue, the parties will perform further discovery and claim con-
`
`struction exchanges before any IPR institution decision. Ex. 2026 at 10. And the
`
`transferee court has already begun to invest resources, such as conducting a case
`
`management conference and ruling on co-defendant HP’s motion for issuance of
`
`letters rogatory. Ex. 2027. Thus, factor 3 continues to favor discretionary denial.
`
`Fintiv Factor 4: It remains undisputed that the parallel litigation will ad-
`
`dress substantially the same claims challenged here, based on the same art and ar-
`
`guments. POPR at 10 (petition adds cls. 5, 10). So, institution would introduce a
`
`duplicative proceeding, fostering inefficiency and potential conflicting decisions.
`
`And the risk of such conflicting decisions is particularly acute here. Peti-
`
`tioner has asked the Board to adopt plain and ordinary meaning for all claim terms
`
`in the patent while asking the district court to narrowly construe two claim terms.
`
`POPR at 17-27. And Petitioner joined HP’s request that the court re-open claim
`
`construction. See Ex. 2004 at 7, 29; Ex. 2026 at 10. The court granted this request,
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-01339
`U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796
`and now Petitioner may ask the court to construe more terms, in further contradic-
`
`tion to its position here.
`
`In its preliminary reply, Petitioner attempts to ameliorate this by stipulating
`
`that it won’t pursue in the district court any ground it raised or could’ve reasonably
`
`raised in the IPR. But this stipulation fails to address that HP has asserted the same
`
`art and arguments in court that Petitioner raises here. POPR at 11. Hence, despite
`
`Petitioner’s stipulation, the Board and Patent Owner will likely duplicate work per-
`
`formed in the parallel litigation. That would increase the risk of inconsistent deter-
`
`minations between the Board and the district court, and unfairly burden Patent
`
`Owner. Therefore, this factor favors discretionary denial.
`
`Fintiv Factor 5: Petitioner doesn’t dispute that, because the district court
`
`will resolve the same issues for the same parties, inefficiency risks favor denial.
`
`Fintiv Factor 6: Petitioner doesn’t dispute that it used improper tactics to
`
`circumvent the Board’s Rules, resulting in its petition exceeding the Board’s word
`
`limit by 3,600 words. And Petitioner doesn’t dispute that it delayed filing its peti-
`
`tion, which led to significant investments in the parallel litigation. Further, Peti-
`
`tioner doesn’t dispute that it failed to establish the Yu reference is prior art or that
`
`its obviousness theories rely on improper hindsight. Thus, factor 6 favors denial.
`
`On balance then, concerns over inefficiency, fairness, and conflicting deci-
`
`sions, particularly on claim construction, all support discretionary denial.
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-01339
`U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796
`/Joseph F. Edell/
`
`
`
`Joseph F. Edell (Reg. No. 67,625)
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 26, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-01339
`U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796
`UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`Description
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM (Defendants’ Invalid-
`ity Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796) (May 18, 2020)
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM, Docket Item 1 (Com-
`plaint for Patent Infringement) (Sept. 25, 2019)
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM, Docket Item 80
`(Amended Scheduling Order) (Mar. 27, 2020)
`2004 Draft Joint Case Management Statement, Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v.
`Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co. Ltd., N.D. Cal. Case No.
`3:20-CV-006607-JD (Oct. 30, 2020)
`2005 Open Text S.A. v. Alfresco Software, Ltd, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:13-
`CV-04910-JD, Docket Item 213 (Transcript of Proceedings) (June 20,
`2014)
`2006 Open Text S.A. v. Alfresco Software, Ltd, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:13-
`CV-04910-JD, Docket Item 240 (Scheduling Order) (Aug. 25, 2014)
`2007 Open Text S.A. v. Alfresco Software, Ltd, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:13-
`CV-04910-JD, Docket Listing
`2008 United States District Court Northern District of California, General
`Order No. 72-6 (Sept. 16, 2020)
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM (Expert Declaration of
`Dr. Rongguang Liang Regarding Claim Construction) (July 13, 2020)
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM (Declaration of Jose
`Sasian, Ph.D., Regarding Claim Construction of United States Patent
`Nos. 7,274,518, 8,395,691, 8,988,796, and 9,146,378) (July 13, 2020)
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:20-CV-006607-JD, Docket Listing
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM (Defendants’ Invalid-
`ity Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796, Exhibit C4 Invalidity
`Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796 (“’796 patent”) Based on
`U.S. Patent No. 9,097,860 to Hung-Kuo Yu and Chao-Hsiang Yang
`(“Yu ’860”)) (May 18, 2020)
`
`2011
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2012
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-01339
`U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796
`
`Exhibit
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2017
`
`Description
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM (Defendants’ Invalid-
`ity Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796, Exhibit C3 Invalidity
`Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796 (“’796 patent”) Based on
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0012861 (“Yamaguchi ’861”))
`(May 18, 2020)
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM (Plaintiff Largan Pre-
`cision Co., Ltd.’s Patent Rule 3-1 and 3-2 Disclosures) (Apr. 2, 2020)
`2015 L. Phillips Email to B. Story Regarding Asserted Claims (May 18,
`2020)
`2016 C. Lee Email to Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co. Ltd. Re-
`garding Infringement of the ’796 Patent (Aug. 8, 2019)
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM, Docket Item 138 (De-
`fendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief) (Sept. 1, 2020)
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 4:19-CV-00696-ALM, Docket Item 131
`(Largan’s Opening Claim Construction Brief) (July 30, 2020)
`[RESERVED]
`2019
`2020 Certified Translation of Taiwanese Application No. 102139029
`2021 Redline showing a comparison of ’796 Patent to Taiwanese Applica-
`tion No. 102139029
`’796 Patent’s Claims 1, 15, and 21 to Taiwanese Application No.
`102139029 Comparison
`2023 U.S. Patent No. 10,502,929 (Lai)
`2024-
`[RESERVED]
`2025
`2026 Amended Joint Case Management Statement, Largan Precision Co.,
`Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co. Ltd., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:20-CV-006607-JD, Docket Item 177 (Jan. 22, 2020)
`2027 Request for International Judicial Assistance, Letters Rogatory, Lar-
`gan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.
`Ltd., N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:20-CV-006607-JD, Docket Items 176, 176-
`1 (Jan. 20, 2020)
`
`
`2018
`
`2022
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-01339
`U.S. Patent No. 8,988,796
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD.’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY
`
`was served via electronic mail to the following attorneys of record for the Peti-
`
`tioner listed below:
`
`
`
`Matthew W. Johnson
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-2514
`
`John A. Marlott
`jamarlott@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker, Suite 3500
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Keith B. Davis
`kbdavis@jonesday.com
`Jeffrey M. White
`jwhite@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`2727 North Hardwood Street, Suite 500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`
`
`Dated: January 26, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`/Joseph F. Edell/
`Joseph F. Edell (Reg. No. 67,625)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
` 7
`
`