`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-00175
`U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`________________________
`PETITIONERS’ EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NECESSITY FOR
`MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioners have filed two petitions challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225 to
`
`Kim (“the 225 Patent”), both of which are principally based on the same prior art
`
`and largely include substantively identical analysis. Two petitions were required
`
`because the analysis of all 22 claims of the 225 Patent could not reasonably fit
`
`within the word limit for a single petition. In considering how best to divide the
`
`analysis between the petitions, Petitioners determined that addressing claim 1 (the
`
`only independent claim) and dependent claims 5-12 in one petition, and claim 1,
`
`and dependent claims 2-4 and 13-22 in a separate petition, was the most efficient
`
`path forward. Petitioners observe, however, that the analysis of claim 1 in each
`
`petition is the same, such that the Board need only address that analysis once. That
`
`claim 1 analysis is included in both petitions solely to support the analysis of
`
`different dependent claims addressed in the different petitions.
`
`
`
`The Board has found that a Petitioner may file multiple petitions against a
`
`single patent when, for example, the asserted claims in the litigation are uncertain
`
`and where petitions rely on the same prior art. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. IPA
`
`Techs. Inc., IPR2019-00810, Paper 12 at 11-16 (Oct. 16, 2019). The Board further
`
`observed that “any duplication of effort that may place unnecessary burdens on the
`
`parties and the Board may be avoided or reduced by consolidating the instituted
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPRs (if institution of review is granted in more than one proceeding), including
`
`consolidating the parties’ briefing, motion practice, and the oral hearings. Id. at
`
`15.
`
`Petitioners made this decision to file two petitions given the length of the
`
`claims and its assessment it could not reasonably fits its analysis in fewer petitions,
`
`and based on certain distinctions between the scope of claims challenged. For
`
`example, claims 18-22 disclose a “filter program” and functions performed by such
`
`a program while claims 6-12 primarily disclose device driver functions and disk
`
`characteristics. By analyzing the most similar independent and dependent claims
`
`in separate petitions, Petitioners have presented the analysis in the most efficient
`
`manner while maintaining appropriate word count limits.
`
`
`
`In addition, Petitioners have challenged all 22 claims of the 225 Patent
`
`because they do not know, at this time, which claims would be asserted against
`
`Petitioner HP Inc. (“HP”) in district court. For example, HP was served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the 225 Patent on November 12, 2019. The
`
`complaint asserts that HP infringes at least claim 1, and that it reserves the right to
`
`assert additional claims. Thus, HP does not know which claims, other than claim
`
`1, Patent Owner will assert against it in district court litigation, thus supporting the
`
`need to challenge all the claims of the 225 patent. See, e.g., id. at 14 (finding that
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner had provided “a reasoned explanation” for filing multiple petitions
`
`where Petitioner was “in the position of not knowing which claims…Patent Owner
`
`would assert against Petitioner in district court litigation.”)
`
`Further, pursuant to the Trial Practice Guide recommendations, Petitioners
`
`identify the following sections as the sections that are substantively identical across
`
`the two petitions, and again note that claim 1 is the only independent claim of the
`
`225 Patent:
`
`IPR2021-00174
`
`Introduction
`
`IPR2021-00175
`
`Introduction
`
`Compliance with the Requirements for
`a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The 225 Patent
`
`Principal Prior Art
`
`Patentability Analysis
`A. 1. Claim 1
`
`
`
`Compliance with the Requirements for
`a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The 225 Patent
`
`Principal Prior Art
`
`Patentability Analysis
`A. 1. Claim 1
`
`Finally, Petitioners recognize that the recent amendments to the Trial
`
`
`
`
`
`Practice Guide state that a petitioner filing multiple petitions against the same
`
`patent “should” identify “a ranking of the petitions in order in which [the
`
`petitioner] wishes the Board to consider the merits.” See pgs. 59-60. Petitioners
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`respectfully suggest that doing so here would be somewhat anomalous. This is not
`
`a situation where the petitions challenge the same claims on different prior art
`
`bases. The basic prior art analysis of the independent claims is identical in both
`
`petitions. Thus, a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses between the two
`
`petitions, which would be necessary to determine a preference, would seem to be a
`
`nonsensical exercise in these unique circumstances.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, given the structure of the claims of the 225 Patent, and the
`
`differences in claims addressed in IPR2021-00174 and IPR2021-00175, Petitioners
`
`respectfully requests that the Board consider and institute Inter Partes reviews on
`
`both petitions. Nevertheless, to the extent the Board deems it necessary to only
`
`consider a single petition, Petitioners rank IPR2021-00174 ahead of IPR2021-
`
`00175.
`
`Dated: November 11, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 11, 2020, a copy of the Petitioners’
`
`Explanation Regarding The Necessity For Multiple Petitions, and exhibits thereto,
`
`has been served in its entirety on the patent owner and counsel for patent owner,
`
`via Federal Express, at the following:
`
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck P.C.
`607 14th Street N.W.
`Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Synkloud Technologies, LLC
`124 Broadkill Road, #415
`Milton, DE 19968
`
`David S. Eagle
`Sean M. Brennecke
`919 Market Street, Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`1918 18th St, Unit 4, NW
`Washington, DC 20009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 11, 2020
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`