Filed: March 2, 2020
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Arkema Inc. and Arkema France
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`ARKEMA INC. AND ARKEMA FRANCE,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`PGR2016-00011
`Patent No. 9,157,017
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REQUEST A
`CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Definition
`
`’017 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017 (Ex. 1001)
`
`’605 application
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/475,605 (Ex. 2170), which
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,005,467
`
`AAC
`Bold Italics
`
`COC
`
`HWBr
`
`HWRBr
`
`Minor
`
`Motion
`
`Opp.
`
`Reply
`
`automobile air conditioning
`
`emphasis added
`
`certificate of correction
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Appeal Nos. 18-1151,
`-1153, D.I. 25 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2018)
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Appeal Nos. 18-1151,
`-1153, D.I. 37 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2018)
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2008/0230738
`
`Paper 61, Patent Owner’s Motion for Leave to Request a
`Certificate of Correction
`
`Paper 71, Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`Motion for Leave to Request a Certificate of Correction
`
`Paper 74, Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of its Motion
`for Leave to Request a Certificate of Correction
`
`WO ’625
`
`WO 2007/02625 (PGR2016-00012, Ex. 1011)
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ASM IP Holding B.V. v. Kokusai Elec. Corp., IPR2019-00378, Paper 17
`(PTAB July 5, 2019) (“ASM”) ............................................................................. 2
`Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, IPR2016-00984, Paper 52 (PTAB Jan.
`24, 2020) .............................................................................................................. 5
`Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, IPR2017-00001, Paper 37, 2 (PTAB
`Nov. 22, 2017) (“Emerson”) ............................................................................... 1
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(“Honeywell”) .......................................................................................... 1, 2, 4, 5
`In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................... 3
`In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408 (CCPA 1960) ................................................................ 4
`Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc., IPR2015-01609,
`Paper 19 (PTAB Mar. 31, 2016) ......................................................................... 5
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................... 4
`Prime Focus Creative Servs. Can. Inc. v. Legend3D, Inc., IPR2016-01491,
`Paper 21 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2017) (“Prime Focus”) ................................................ 2
`SPTS Tech. Ltd. v. Plasma-Therm LLC, IPR2018-00618, Paper 7, 2 (PTAB
`May 1, 2018) (“SPTS Tech.”) .............................................................................. 1
`Sw. Software, Inc. v. Harlequin Inc., 226 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..................... 5
`United Servs. Auto Ass’n v. Asghari-Kamrani, CBM2016-00063, Paper 10, 5
`(PTAB Aug. 4, 2016) (“USAA”) ......................................................................... 1
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 4
`35 U.S.C. § 255 ................................................................................................ 1, 3, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 303(a) .................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 304 ........................................................................................................ 3
`Other Authorities
`MPEP § 1481.03 ....................................................................................................... 3
`MPEP § 1485 ............................................................................................................ 4
`MPEP § 2133.01 ....................................................................................................... 4
`MPEP § 2242 ............................................................................................................ 3
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.56(e) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`Honeywell seeks a COC to establish an entirely new priority date
`
`via applications never identified in the ’017 patent record. But, as admitted by
`
`Honeywell’s prosecution counsel, “it was never Honeywell’s intent during the
`
`lifetime of the ’017 patent prosecution to make a claim to [an] additional priority
`
`chain” and “[t]here was no error that was made during the prosecution itself.” Ex.
`
`1197, 25:3-26:16, 70:11-18, 72:4-9. No precedent, much less Honeywell’s alleged
`
`“40+ years of precedent,” supports this misuse of a COC. Indeed, it is precluded by
`
`statute, regulation, and Office practice. Honeywell’s Motion thus fails to establish a
`
`“sufficient basis” for issuance of a COC. See Honeywell at 1349.
`
`A. Honeywell has not shown “mistake” or “unintentional delay”
`Honeywell’s citations to “at least 10 cases” allowing COCs for priority claims
`
`(Reply, 1) are irrelevant given that Honeywell’s deliberate actions preclude issuance
`
`of a COC. See Opp., 3-5. That COCs were allowed for other patents under other
`
`circumstances does not support Honeywell’s burden to establish a sufficient basis
`
`that its litigation strategy here is a § 255 “mistake” or “unintentional delay.”
`
`Unlike USAA, Honeywell’s proposed change is not based on a clerical error.
`
`Ex. 2041, 9:24-10:5, 22:20-24. Honeywell’s admission that “[t]here was no error
`
`that was made during the prosecution itself” (Ex. 1197, 72:4-9) distinguishes
`
`Emerson (change of “and is a continuation” to “which is a continuation” said to be
`
`consistent with file history) and SPTS Tech. (priority claimed in ADS but not
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`underlined as information being changed). Honeywell’s further admission that “it
`
`was never Honeywell’s intent during the lifetime of the ’017 patent prosecution to
`
`make a claim to [an] additional priority chain” (Ex. 1197, 25:3-26:16, 71:8-20) also
`
`distinguishes ASM, where the correction was based on “a mistake in the claim of
`
`priority made in connection with the filing of the” application, which “should have
`
`claimed priority” to another application. ASM, Paper 12, 2; Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 7, 9.
`
`Honeywell’s argument that its Motion should be granted because “Arkema
`
`does not cite” precedent precluding its COC request (Reply, 1, 3, 4) ignores
`
`Honeywell’s burden and is wrong. Honeywell at 1349 (the Board should have
`
`“determine[d] if Honeywell had demonstrated a ‘sufficient basis’ that the mistake
`
`‘may’ be correctable”); Opp., § I.A. Rather than distinguish Prime Focus—which
`
`denied authorization to file a motion for a COC to change portions of the
`
`specification relied on in the institution decision—Honeywell misrepresents that
`
`“the Federal Circuit declined to endorse” Prime Focus. Reply, 7. In fact, the Court
`
`made no mention of, and certainly did not reject, Prime Focus.
`
`B. Honeywell’s proposed new priority date is not a “minor” change
`and would require reexamination
`Honeywell is seeking a priority claim three years later than the 2002 date
`
`relied upon during prosecution and eight years earlier than its March 26, 2014,
`
`effective filing date. Rather than showing this to be a “minor” change, Honeywell
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`admitted that “seeking to push [priority] back beyond the originally-claimed
`
`priority[] perhaps… would not have been minor.” Ex. 2041, 21:18-21.
`
`Honeywell also does not dispute that its COC would expand the universe of
`
`prior art by at least three years relative to original prosecution. See Opp., 10-11. That
`
`the reexamination expressly prohibited by § 255 would be required is not
`
`hypothetical. Indeed, Minor meets the MPEP § 2242 “substantial likelihood that a
`
`reasonable examiner would consider the prior art… important” reexamination test
`
`for the reasons found by the ’605 application examiner when examining claims with
`
`AAC limitations. Ex. 1194, 534; Opp., 10-11; In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383-
`
`84 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (applicant waived argument that provisional failed to support
`
`§ 102(e) reference). Reexamination also would be required over other 2002-2005
`
`prior art, considered in addition to or in combination with Minor. For example,
`
`Honeywell’s U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0089839 is § 102(b) prior art to the ’605
`
`application and contains the same “Example 1” that Honeywell relied upon to argue
`
`possession of the ’017 claims. E.g., Paper 12 at 20, 26, 57. Honeywell’s assertion
`
`that reexamination under § 303(a) is discretionary (Reply, 5) is irrelevant under
`
`§ 255. See MPEP § 1481.03. It is also inaccurate as reexamination “will” be ordered
`
`where “a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of a patent is
`
`raised[.]” 35 U.S.C. § 304.
`
`Not claiming CIP priority to the ’605 application clearly benefited Honeywell
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`during original prosecution of the ’017 patent, which further demonstrates that the
`
`omission was intentional. See, e.g., Ex. 2041, 13:11-14; Ex. 1197, 65:20-70:6,
`
`108:10-110:14. To have claimed CIP priority would have signaled new matter,
`
`requiring disclosure and consideration of known intervening art. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva
`
`Pharm. USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (CIP implies new matter
`
`added); 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(e) (duty to disclose intervening prior art); Ex. 1197, 99:14-
`
`100:21. Claiming CIP priority now will require examination of § 112 support and
`
`intervening prior art Honeywell previously evaded. See Opp. 11; MPEP § 2133.01.
`
`Ignoring the express requirements of Rule 56(e), Honeywell asserts it can
`
`withhold intervening prior art because Example 6 in the applications it seeks to add
`
`via COC provides full § 112 support. Reply, 5. But even with a COC, Honeywell is
`
`not entitled to and has not established such support (HWRBr, 28-29). Specifically,
`
`while Example 6 in WO ’625 anticipates, this does not equate to § 112 support. See
`
`In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960) (single species anticipated generic
`
`claims); cf. Motion, 12-13. Thus, further demonstrating that reexamination would
`
`be required, the Office would have to consider both § 112 issues and intervening art.
`
`Honeywell’s COC is also precluded by the MPEP § 1485 “clear from the
`
`record” requirement. See Honeywell at 1351. As Honeywell concedes, there is no
`
`reference to the alternate ’605 priority chain in the ’017 file history. See Reply, 3.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`C. Honeywell fails to dispute or accommodate Arkema’s prejudice
`Unable to meet its burden to establish the absence of prejudice to Arkema,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`
`Honeywell makes a fallacious argument that its untimely, litigation driven COC is
`
`not prejudicial because “§255 permits corrections of good faith mistakes.” Reply, 9-
`
`10. This is nonsensical. Even permitted COCs—this one is not—may be prejudicial.
`
`E.g., Honeywell at 1351 (“Board should then review Honeywell’s motion… to
`
`evaluate whether prejudice to Arkema requires accommodation”); see Inline
`
`Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc., IPR2015-01609, Paper 19, 3-4
`
`(PTAB Mar. 31, 2016) (holding COC in abeyance due to prejudice). Honeywell
`
`further deflects that “Arkema also has not identified any potential prejudice that
`
`defies ‘accommodation’” (Reply, 9), but provides no means to accommodate the
`
`previously identified prejudices or the continued prejudicial delay. See Opp., 14-15.
`
`The absence of any retroactive COC effect per Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO,
`
`LLC, IPR2016-00984, Paper 52 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020), and therefore the futility of
`
`Honeywell’s COC, was not disputed in Honeywell’s Reply and should therefore be
`
`taken as conceded. This is not changed by Honeywell’s misrepresentation of Sw.
`
`Software, Inc. v. Harlequin Inc., which held that a COC can only effect “cause[s] of
`
`action arising after… the date the certificate of correction issued.” 226 F.3d 1280,
`
`1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The ultimate futility of Honeywell’s COC does not, however,
`
`alleviate the prejudice to Arkema of further drawing out the proceeding.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: March 2, 2020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`
`
`
`By: /Mark J. Feldstein/
`Mark D. Sweet, Reg. No. 41,469
`Mark J. Feldstein, Reg. No. 46,693
`Erin M. Sommers, Reg. No. 60,974
`Charles W. Mitchell, Reg. No. 73,228
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Arkema Inc. and Arkema France
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Sur-Reply in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Leave to Request a
`
`Certificate of Correction was served electronically via email on March 2, 2020, in
`
`its entirety on the following:
`
`Gregg F. LoCascio
`Noah Frank
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`glocascio@kirkland.com
`noah.frank@kirkland.com
`HON_PTAB_Service@kirkland.com
`
`
`Patent Owner has consented to electronic service by email.
`
`By: /William Esper/
`William Esper
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 2, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`