IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`ENSIGN US SOUTHERN DRILLING LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`C&M OILFIELD RENTALS, LLC
`D/B/A C-MOR ENERGY SERVICES
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00804
`U.S. Patent No. 10,976,016
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,976,016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’016 PATENT ........................................................... 3
`III. THE PETITION’S PROCEDURAL FAILURES WARRANT
`DENYING INSTITUTION ............................................................................ 5
`A.
`The Petition Takes Inconsistent Positions on Claim
`Construction ......................................................................................... 6
`Petitioner’s Conclusory Expert Declaration Should be Given
`No Weight and Does Not Cure The Petition’s Deficiencies ................ 7
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ..................................................................... 10
`A.
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on Ground 1 (Gowanlock) ................................................ 11
`i.
`Ground 1 fails to establish that Gowanlock discloses a
`“crown deck” ............................................................................ 12
`Ground 1 fails to establish that Gowanlock discloses a
`“mounting pole” ....................................................................... 14
`iii. Ground 1 fails to establish that Gowanlock discloses “a
`bracket configured to attach the mounting pole to the
`crown deck of the rig” .............................................................. 16
`iv. Ground 1 fails to establish that Gowanlock discloses that
`“the backet is connected to the crown deck of the rig
`using bolts” .............................................................................. 19
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on Ground 2 (Gowanlock and Swivelpole). ..................... 20
`i.
`Ground 2 fails to identify with particularity the proposed
`combination. ............................................................................. 21
`Ground 2’s references fail to disclose a “crown deck” ............ 23
`ii.
`iii. Ground 2’s references fail to disclose a “mounting pole” ....... 24
`
`ii.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00234
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`iv. Ground 2’s references fail to disclose “a bracket
`configured to attach the mounting pole to the crown deck
`of the rig” ................................................................................. 26
`Ground 2’s references fail to disclose that “the bracket is
`connected to the crown deck of the rig using bolts” ................ 28
`Petitioner fails to establish a supportable, non-hindsight
`reason why a POSITA would have been motivated to
`combine the references ............................................................ 29
`vii. Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have
`had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the
`references. ................................................................................ 37
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on Ground 3 (Chinese ‘413, Swivelpole, and APA). ....... 39
`i.
`Ground 3 fails to identify with particularity the proposed
`combination .............................................................................. 40
`Ground 3’s references fail to disclose a “crown deck” ............ 40
`ii.
`iii. Ground 3’s references fail to disclose “a bracket
`configured to attach the mounting pole to the crown deck
`of the rig” ................................................................................. 42
`iv. Ground 3’s references fail to disclose a “bracket []
`connected to the crown deck of the rig using bolts” ................ 44
`Petitioner fails to establish a supportable, non-hindsight
`reason why a POSITA would have been motivated to
`combine the references ............................................................ 44
`Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have
`had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the
`references ................................................................................. 48
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on Ground 4 (Magnalight Video and APA)...................... 49
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00234
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`i.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`Ground 4 fails to identify with particularity the proposed
`combination. ............................................................................. 49
`Ground 4’s references fail to disclosea “crown deck” ............. 50
`ii.
`iii. Ground 4’s references fail to disclose a “mounting pole” ....... 51
`iv. Ground 4’s references fail to identify “a bracket
`configured to attach the mounting pole to the crown deck
`of the rig” ................................................................................. 52
`Ground 4’s references fail to disclose that “the bracket is
`connected to the crown deck of the rig using bolts” ................ 52
`Petitioner fails to establish a supportable, non-hindsight
`reason why a POSITA would have been motivated to
`combine the references ............................................................ 53
`vii. Petitioner’s remaining motivations to combine are based
`on impermissible hindsight. ..................................................... 55
`viii. Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have
`had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the
`references. ................................................................................ 56
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION UNDER § 314(A) ......... 57
`A.
`Factor 1: A Stay is Highly Unlikely in the Parallel Proceeding ........ 57
`B.
`Factor 2: The Median Time to Trial Is Before the Deadline for a
`Final Written Decision ....................................................................... 58
`Factor 3: The Parties Have Invested Significant Time and
`Money in The Parallel Proceeding, Which Has Been Pending
`for Over 16 Months ............................................................................ 59
`Factor 4: The Petition Challenges the Same Claims Using
`Substantially the Same Prior Art That Petitioner Asserts in the
`Parallel Proceeding ............................................................................. 60
`Factor 5: The Parties in Both Proceedings are the Same ................... 62
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00234
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Factor 6: Petitioner’s Arguments Do Not Plainly Lead to a
`Conclusion of Unpatentability ........................................................... 62
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 63
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech. Inc.,
`IPR2020-00222, Paper 12 (PTAB May 26, 2020) ............................................... 6
`Adaptics Ltd., v. Perfect Co.,
`IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019) ............................................... 40
`Apple Inc. v. AliveCor, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00873, Paper 7 ..................................................................................... 42
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) ......................................passim
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 25
`Canon Inc. v. Optimum Imaging Techs. LLC,
`IPR2020-01322 Paper 9 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2021) .................................................. 60
`Charter Commc’ns v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P.,
`IPR2019-01137, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2019) ................................................. 51
`Content Square SAS v. Medallia Inc.,
`IPR2022-00316, Paper 13 (PTAB July 14, 2022) ................................................ 9
`Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01295, 2017 WL 4862064 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2017) .................... 1, 22, 23
`Farmers Edge, Inc., v. AGI Suretrack, LLC,
`IPR2023-00158, Paper 14 (PTAB May 11, 2023) ............................................. 10
`Google LLC v. Ikorongo Tech. LLC,
`IPR2021-00205, Paper 13 (PTAB June 7, 2021) ............................................... 62
`InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01704, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2016) ................................................ 9
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 22, 56
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 53
`InVue Sec. Prods., Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc.,
`PGR2019-00019, Paper 7 (PTAB May 29, 2019) ........................................ 22, 50
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) ................................................ 38
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014) ................................................. 9
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Matterport, Inc. v. Appliance Computing III, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00939, Paper 15 (PTAB Nov. 23, 2021) ....................................... 31, 36
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. In-Depth Text LLC,
`IPR2017-02094, Paper 8 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2018) ................................................. 6
`Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC,
`662 F. App’x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................... 32, 46, 55
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`851 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 8
`Nikon Corp. v. ASML Netherlands B.V., Carl Zeiss AG,
`IPR2018-00227, Paper 9 (PTAB Jun. 4, 2018) .................................................. 32
`NOF Corp. v. Nektar Therapeutics,
`IPR2019-01396, Paper 28 (PTAB Jun. 10, 2020) ................................................ 7
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................passim
`Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC,
`903 F.3d 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 33
`Pungkuk Wire Mfg. Co. v. Seong,
`IPR2016-00763, 2017 WL 3535009 (PTAB Aug. 16, 2017) ............................. 19
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) ................................................ 62
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Clear Imaging Rsch.,
`IPR2020-01399, Paper 13 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2021) ................................................ 61
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Imperium (Ip) Holdings,
`IPR2015-01233, 2015 WL 9599164 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2015) ......................... 29, 34
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ............................................. 61
`SK Innovation Co., LTD v. LG Chem, LTD,
`IPR2020-01239, Paper 14 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2021) .............................................. 62
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 8
`Vector Flow, Inc. v. HID Glob. Corp.,
`IPR2023-00353, Paper 8 (PTAB July 17, 2023) ................................................ 62
`Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) ........................................passim
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(3) .......................................................................................................... 22
`§ 314(a) ......................................................................................................... 10, 57
`§ 315(b) ............................................................................................................... 58
`§ 315(e)(2) .......................................................................................................... 61
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3) ........................................................................................... 6
`Other Authorities
`Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation (June 21, 2022) ................................................................................... 62
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition by Ensign
`
`US Southern Drilling (“Petitioner”) seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and
`
`23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976, 016 (the “’016 Patent”). The Petition should be
`
`denied for numerous independent and incurable reasons.
`
`First, the Petition is procedurally deficient. For example, the Petition fails
`
`to identify, with particularity, its obviousness combinations—instead making
`
`prolific use of “and/or” for its myriad of potential prior art combinations. This is
`
`compounded by Petitioner failing to take a clear position on the meaning of
`
`material claim terms—first stating that it “currently believe[s] that no terms need
`
`to be expressly construed for purposes of this IPR because the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning applies,” but then identifying constructions that “may be employed.”
`
`Pet. 19-20. The Board (and Patent Owner) should not be expected to “comb
`
`through Petitioner’s arguments in order to decipher the strongest argument or to
`
`determine the strongest combination of references to challenge the claims.”
`
`Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc., IPR2017-01295, 2017 WL
`
`4862064, at *2 n.1 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2017). Further compounding the issue,
`
`Petitioner’s expert declaration merely repeats the Petition verbatim without
`
`providing additional evidence or technical reasoning for many, if not most, of the
`
`claim limitations, and, as such, should be given little to no weight. Xerox Corp. v.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022).
`
`
`
`Second, Petitioner fails to show how the references teach many of the claim
`
`limitations, including (i) a “crown deck”; (ii) a “mounting pole”; and (iii) either “a
`
`bracket configured to attach the mounting pole to the crown deck of the rig” or a
`
`“bracket” that “is connected to the crown deck of the rig using bolts.” These
`
`substantive deficiencies—which permeate every challenged claim—cannot be
`
`remedied.
`
`Third, Petitioner provides no supported, non-hindsight based motivation to
`
`combine the references in all of the obviousness Grounds 2-4. Instead, Petitioner
`
`parrots boilerplate KSR motivations that are entirely conclusory. Any remaining
`
`attempts at providing a motivation to combine are clearly based on impermissible
`
`hindsight reasoning or the ipse dixit of its expert. What is more, Petitioner never
`
`establishes that a POSITA would be able to combine the references with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Fourth, per Fintiv, the Board should discretionarily deny institution in view
`
`of the parallel district court proceeding, which is far advanced with a Markman
`
`hearing set for August 24, 2023. Petitioner waited until the last possible moment
`
`to file its Petition, on the eve of the statutory deadline, after significant progress
`
`has been made in the district court case and over 8 months after identifying its
`
`primary reference (“Gowanlock”). Now, Petitioner raises substantially the same
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`prior art, challenges the same claims, and offers no Sotera-style stipulation. What
`
`
`
`is more, the district court proceeding involves additional counts completely
`
`unaffected by this IPR, including claims for breach of contract and infringement of
`
`a second patent that Petitioner has not challenged in an IPR (and cannot now),
`
`making a stay there unlikely. As such, it is not an efficient use of the Office’s
`
`resources to proceed here, only to address a subset of the issues from the district
`
`court case. Even if the district court trial occurs around the same time as the
`
`anticipated Final Written Decision (“FWD”), potentially conflicting decisions from
`
`the Board and the district court will lead to a race to appeal.
`
`For each of these reasons, the Petition should be denied.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’016 PATENT
`The ’016 Patent generally relates to lighting systems used on drilling rigs.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’016 Pat.) at Abstract. These systems are “critical to ensure continuous
`
`and safe operation of well sites.” Id. at 1:13-14. The ’016 Patent explains that,
`
`“[t]o ensure even and effective lighting of the well site, lighting systems have
`
`previously been installed on the uppermost portion of the drilling rig, also referred
`
`to as the ‘crown’ of the rig.” Id. at 1:14-17. According to the ’016 Patent, “[p]rior
`
`art crown-mounted lighting systems developed for oil rigs are limited in several
`
`ways,” including that “[t]heir designs are complicated and designed for specific
`
`rigs or rig types” and, “[t]ypically, once they are designed for a particular rig or a
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`particular type of rig, the lighting systems designs are limited and are not able to be
`
`
`
`adapted for other uses.” Id. at 1:17-22.
`
`Specifically, “[p]rior art lighting systems for drilling rigs are fixed,
`
`monolithic structures that are typically crown or frame systems, with a single size
`
`and layout accommodating one type of light and rig.” Id. at 1:23-26. Thus, “they
`
`are heavy and typically require cranes along with multiple workers for installation,
`
`removal, and adjustments.” Id. at 1:27-28. For example, “[a] typical rig lighting
`
`frame system may require between 6 and 12 hours for installation.” Id. at 29-30.
`
`“Due to the high cost of operating a rig, any such delay is extremely inefficient for
`
`the operator of a wellsite.” Id. at 1:35-37. These inefficiencies “also increase the
`
`time required to be spent on maintaining these systems, which also increases safety
`
`risk.” Id. at 1:37-39.
`
`Unlike the prior art, the ’016 Patent claims, among other things, a modular
`
`lighting system mounted on a rig where a plurality of light units are each
`
`separately attached to a crown deck of the rig and comprise a mounting pole, a
`
`light fixture having one or more lights, and a bracket configured to attach the
`
`mounting pole to the crown deck of a rig. See, e.g., id. at claim 1. Generally, these
`
`have a “low profile to minimize the wind shear forces that may be experienced by
`
`the light units at the top of a structure.” Id. at 4:58-60.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Figures 6 and 7A (below) provide an overview of one embodiment. Id. at
`
`
`
`2:10-15, 3:5-8. Light fixture 248 (green) may be connected to light bracket 400
`
`(orange). Id. at 4:31-40. Mounting pole 240 (light green) is attached to the crown
`
`deck using brackets 300 and 310 (Top and Bottom) (purple) that attach to top rail
`
`242 (red) and bottom rail 244 (red). Id. at 3:38-59, 4:30-53.
`
`
`
`III. THE PETITION’S PROCEDURAL FAILURES WARRANT
`DENYING INSTITUTION
`Before turning to the merits, the Petition should be denied due to two
`
`procedural deficiencies: (i) the Petition does not identify how the challenged
`
`claims are to be construed, and (ii) Petitioner impermissibly incorporates swaths of
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`conclusory statements from its expert’s declaration with no further elaboration,
`
`
`
`support, or analysis. These deficiencies alone warrant denial.
`
`A. The Petition Takes Inconsistent Positions on Claim Construction
`Petitioner flouts the requirement to identify “how the challenged claim is to
`
`be construed,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3), by proposing alternative constructions
`
`and committing to none. The “failure to take a clear position on the [claim terms]
`
`is grounds alone for denying the Petition.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. In-Depth
`
`Text LLC, IPR2017-02094, Paper 8 at 9 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2018); see 3Shape A/S v.
`
`Align Tech. Inc., IPR2020-00222, Paper 12 at 16 (PTAB May 26, 2020) (denying
`
`institution where, inter alia, Petitioner appeared to ask the Board to apply two sets
`
`of constructions and, thus, failed to identify how the construed claim is
`
`unpatentable as required by the rules).
`
`Petitioner asserts that none of the claims need “to be expressly construed for
`
`purposes of this IPR because the plain and ordinary meaning applies,” but then
`
`proceeds to provide claim constructions adopted by the Western District of Texas
`
`Court that “may be employed” by the Board.1 Pet. 19-22.
`
`
`1 The Patent Owner believes claim constructions adopted in the parallel proceeding
`
`should apply here.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Further exacerbating the issue, Petitioner asserts that the “crown deck”
`
`
`
`limitation is disclosed by prior art figures in a manner that is inconsistent with
`
`Petitioner’s own definition. For example, neither the Gowanlock Figure 1A nor
`
`the purported AAPA Figure 1 incorporate a “collection of structures within the
`
`crown that includes a walking surface, parts supporting the walking surface,
`
`and any associated handrail.”2 Compare Pet. 20, with id. at 55, 66, 79, 88.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Conclusory Expert Declaration Should be Given No
`Weight and Does Not Cure The Petition’s Deficiencies
`Petitioner’s expert Jake Hamdan is employed as its VP of Engineering, Ex.
`
`1008 ¶ 2, which significantly undermines his credibility as providing impartial
`
`testimony. E.g., NOF Corp. v. Nektar Therapeutics, IPR2019-01396, Paper 28 at
`
`6-7 (PTAB Jun. 10, 2020) (finding expert testimony less persuasive when the
`
`expert was employed by Petitioner). And although Mr. Hamdan states that he has
`
`“extensive experience in all aspects of rigs, including engineering and design work
`
`related to…well site lighting,” Ex. 1008 ¶ 11, his CV shows none, Ex. 1007.3
`
`
`2 Patent Owner maintains that “crown deck” means the “collection of structures
`
`within the crown that includes a walking surface, parts supporting the walking
`
`surface, and any associated handrail.” Ex. 1009 at 6.
`
`3 For this Response only, Patent Owner does not dispute the Petitioner’s definition
`
`of a POSITA.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`But the crux of the issue with Mr. Hamdan’s declaration is that he provides
`
`
`
`no technical reasoning or evidence to support his opinions, which warrants giving
`
`his opinions “little weight.” Xerox, Paper 9 at 16 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022)
`
`(affording declaration little weight when expert “offer[ed] only a verbatim
`
`restatement of the assertion being supported, without any supporting evidence or
`
`technical reasoning”). See also, e.g., TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d
`
`1352, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (expert’s conclusory opinions are “inadequate to
`
`support the Board’s fact finding”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274-75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (expert may not “fill in
`
`missing limitations” by alleging a POSITA would envision them). For example,
`
`where the references fail to disclose an element, Mr. Hamdan attempts to fill the
`
`gaps with his opinion about what was allegedly “known” or “well-known” or
`
`statements about what a POSITA “would readily” do without any supporting
`
`evidence or technical reasoning. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 at ¶¶ 60, 62, 86, 90, 98, 101,
`
`107, 110 & pp. 53, 58, 71, 82.
`
`As another example, Mr. Hamdan opines that a POSITA would have
`
`reasonably expected to succeed in combining PCT Publication WO 2018/0423348
`
`(“Gowanlock”) and Swivelpole Product Catalogue NEC V2-4. Printed March 2014
`
`(“Swivelpole”) “because lights with mounting poles attached with brackets have
`
`been attached to many items such as guardrails for years using tools available in
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`most hardware stores and commonly fabricated in oil field equipment fabrication
`
`
`
`shows and rig upyards.” Ex. 1008 at ¶ 87; see id. ¶¶ 98 (Ground 3), 107 (Ground
`
`4). Yet Mr. Hamdan “does not provide any facts, data, or analysis to support the
`
`opinion stated.” Content Square SAS v. Medallia Inc., IPR2022-00316, Paper 13 at
`
`38 (PTAB July 14, 2022). These types of conclusory, unsupported statements
`
`proliferate the entirety of Mr. Hamdan’s so-called “opinions,” and cannot be given
`
`any weight.
`
`Instead, Mr. Hamdan’s declaration simply “repeats the Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and offers little or no elaboration.” InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-01704, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2016). For example, where Mr.
`
`Hamdan purports to offer “analysis and identification of how claims 1, 2, and 23
`
`are unpatentable,” he merely repeats the Petition’s “summary chart[s].” Compare
`
`Pet. 55-58 (“Summary Chart” for Ground 1), with Ex. 1008 at 51-54 (same chart
`
`for Ground 1). Mr. Hamdan takes the same approach for the remaining Grounds.
`
`Compare Pet. 65-69 (Ground 2), 76-80 (Ground 3), 85-89 (Ground 4), with Ex.
`
`1008 at 54-59 (Ground 2), 67-73 (Ground 3), 78-83 (Ground 4). “Merely
`
`repeating an argument from the Petition in the declaration of a proposed expert
`
`does not give that argument enhanced probative value.” Kinetic Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Skyworks Sols., Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 at 15 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014).
`
`Alternatively, if Petitioner simply copied Mr. Hamdan’s conclusory charts
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`and statements, then Petitioner is no better off, as parties “that incorporate expert
`
`
`
`testimony by reference in their petitions, motions, or replies without providing
`
`explanation of such testimony risk having the testimony not be considered by the
`
`Board.” See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 35-36 (Nov. 2019) ).4 For
`
`example, Petitioner’s commentary on motivations to combine consists of an
`
`introductory statement and a wholesale repeat (including paragraph numbering) of
`
`Mr. Hamdan’s declaration. Pet. 33-51. Again, Mr. Hamdan’s opinions should not
`
`be considered. Farmers Edge, Inc., v. AGI Suretrack, LLC, IPR2023-00158, Paper
`
`14 at 21 (PTAB May 11, 2023) (the Board “need not consider” expert’s
`
`“conclusory” testimony “that is improperly incorporated by reference (without
`
`discussion) into the Petition.”) (citation omitted).
`
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS
`The Board may not institute an IPR unless “the information presented in the
`
`petition…shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`The Petition should be denied because Petitioner fails to satisfy this burden for
`
`each of its four Grounds.
`
`
`4 Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on Ground 1 (Gowanlock)
`Ground 1 fails for independent four reasons.5
`
`First, each of the challenged claims requires a “crown deck,” which
`
`Gowanlock does not disclose.
`
`Second, each challenge claim requires a “mounting pole,” which Gowanlock
`
`does not disclose.
`
`Third, Petitioner does not demonstrate that Gowanlock discloses “a bracket
`
`configured to attach the mounting pole to the crown deck of the rig” as claims 1
`
`and 2 require.
`
`Fourth, dependent claim 2 requires that “the bracket” be “connected to the
`
`crown deck of the rig using bolts,” which Gowanlock does not disclose.
`
`
`5 The Gowanlock reference on which Petitioner relies (WO 2018/042348) is
`
`the same as CA3034206 to Gowanlock, which was considered by the Office during
`
`prosecution. Ex. 1001 (citing CA 3034206 as first for “FOREIGN PATENT
`
`DOCUMENTS”); Ex. 1002 at 278, 282; Pet. at 22 n.13 (admitting that “CA3034206
`
`listed on the face of the ’016 Patent is a Canadian counterpart of PCT Publication
`
`WO 2018/0423348[.]”).
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Ground 1 fails to establish that Gowanlock discloses a “crown
`deck”
`For each “crown deck” limitation, Petitioner cites to Figures 1A, 1B, and 2
`
`i.
`
`on pages 10-11 of Gowanlock without further explanation. Pet. 52-57. In fact,
`
`Petitioner never identifies a “crown deck” in these figures. Nor can it.
`
`For example, Figure 1A (below) shows “a lighting system mounted on a
`
`drilling rig.” Ex. 1003 at [0012]. Although Gowanlock discusses a “crown block
`
`13” in connection with Figure 1A, id., it does not include a “crown deck,” which is
`
`something different—i.e., a “collection of structures within the crown that includes
`
`a walking surface, parts supporting the walking surface, and any associated
`
`handrail.” Pet. 19-20; Ex. 1008 ¶ 20. Likewise, Figures 1B and 2 (below) show a
`
`“light fixture” (101, 203), “bracket” (102, 204), and “light fixture attachment”
`
`(103, 202). Ex. 1003 at [0019]. But Petitioner has not identified a “crown deck”
`
`in either of these figures (because it does not exist).
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner next cites paragraph 81 of Mr. Hamdan’s Declaration as purported
`
`support. Pet. 52-54. However, that paragraph merely reproduces the Petition’s
`
`same “summary chart,” and provides no technical reasoning or evidentiary support.
`
`Compare Ex. 1008 ¶ 81, with Pet. 55-57. Per Xerox, Paper 9 at 15, this conclusory
`
`opinion should be given no weight.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Gowanlock discloses a “crown
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`deck,” and has incurably failed to meet its burden. For this reason alone,
`
`
`
`institution should be denied.6
`
`ii.
`
`Ground 1 fails to establish that Gowanlock discloses a
`“mounting pole”
`Petitioner has not shown that Gowanlock discloses a “mounting pole.”
`
`First, Petitioner contends that “Gowanlock discloses a short mounting pole which
`
`it describes as a ‘light fixture attachment (103 and 202)’ in paragraph [0019].” Pet.
`
`at 52. Petitioner cites Figures 1A, 1B, and 2 in support. Id. Yet Petitioner never
`
`explains how or why a POSITA would understand Gowanlock’s “light fixture
`
`attachment,” identified as items 103 and 202 in Figures 1B and 2, to be the claimed
`
`“mounting pole.” Id.
`
`As shown in Figures 1B, 2, and 3 (below), Gowanlock’s “light fixture
`
`attachment” (red) is a short, singular component with a rectangular indention at
`
`one end that hangs off the rig. Gowanlock discusses the “light fixture attachment”
`
`just once: “[a]nd in this embodiment, the light fixture is connected to the crown
`
`directly through the light fixture attachment (103 and 202).” Ex. 1003 at [0019].
`
`
`6 None of the other references disclose, nor are they relied upon as disclosing, a
`
`crown deck.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00804
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner never explains how or why Gowanlock’s “light fixture
`
`attachment” constitutes “a pole used for mounting something,” according to each
`
`word’s plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 20-21 (construction of “mounting pole”
`
`that “may be employed”); Ex. 1