`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1252
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ROBOTIC FLOOR
`CLEANING DEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO SUBMIT NOTICE
`REGARDING IPR2021-0054 (MOT. DKT. 1252-049C)
`
`Complainant iRobot Corporation (“iRobot” or “Complainant”) respectfully submits this
`
`brief response to Shark’s “Motion to Submit Notice of Issuance of Final Written Decision of the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2021-0054 Relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,884,423” (the
`
`“Motion”). While written as seeking leave to “submit” the PTAB’s final written decision, Shark
`
`uses its Motion to submit an untimely reply to its Petition for Review. Not only is this procedurally
`
`improper, but the arguments raised in the Motion are substantively wrong and misrepresent the
`
`PTAB’s findings regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,884,423 (the “’423 Patent”).
`
`At trial, iRobot asserted that Shark’s IQ and ION robots infringe claim 9, which requires
`
`“avoiding, by the robotic cleaning device, the right signal and the left signal while an energy level
`
`of the battery of the robotic cleaning device remains above a predetermined energy level.” ’423
`
`Patent, Cl. 9. As iRobot explained and as Shark did not contest, Shark’s robots meet this claim
`
`limitation because they use signals from their base station to trigger dock avoidance maneuvers.
`
`iRobot’s Post-HB at 38–39. Likewise, iRobot argued that its DI Products practice claim 9 because
`
`they too read a signal emitted from the base station to trigger dock avoidance. Id. at 55. To escape
`
`infringement and technical DI, Shark argued that claim 9 is far narrower in scope, and that neither
`
`iRobot’s nor Shark’s robots practice the claim because they do not “simultaneously” detect “the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`left and right signal” to trigger dock avoidance. Id. at 24–27. The FID squarely rejected Shark’s
`
`“unduly restrictive” arguments and agreed with iRobot. FID at 61–65, 89–90. Shark’s Petition
`
`for Review recasts these same arguments which again should be rejected. See Shark Pet. at 51–
`
`55; iRobot’s Resp. at 22–25.
`
`Shark’s selective quoting of the FWD from the PTAB is not, as Shark argues, “relevant to
`
`SharkNinja’s petition for review on whether iRobot’s domestic industry products practice claim
`
`9.” Motion at 2. Shark suggests that the PTAB rested its decision on the notion that it allegedly
`
`construed claim 9 to require avoidance based on detecting the “right and left signals.” This is
`
`incorrect and ignores the full context of the PTAB’s findings. The PTAB determined that the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of “avoiding” in the context of the ’423 Patent requires “more than not
`
`attempting to detect the signals” and refers to a robot “moving away from the base station or
`
`altering its course to avoid the base station.” FWD at 53. The PTAB then determined that claim
`
`9 is valid over Shark’s prior art, including a robot that “did not attempt to detect (i.e., avoid)
`
`infrared signals” (Jeon) and another robot that triggered avoidance behavior “on detecting
`
`reflections of IR signals from the robot off of obstacles” (Jones). Id. (citations omitted). The
`
`PTAB specifically agreed with iRobot that the prior art did not describe “a robot detecting and
`
`avoiding an infrared signal emitted by a charging base station.” Id. (citations omitted). Thus,
`
`the PTAB focused on whether the prior art taught avoidance based on an infrared signal from the
`
`base station—which the prior art did not teach—which is consistent with iRobot’s argument and
`
`the ALJ’s FID findings that claim 9 is practiced by robots that avoid their base station using the
`
`left signal, right signal, both, or another signal, so long as that signal comes from the base station.
`
`Moreover, Shark’s unsolicited re-argument of claim 9 should have no bearing on the
`
`Commission’s determination of whether a violation has occurred, which is only relevant to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`enforcing remedial orders against Shark’s infringing products. See, e.g., Certain Unmanned Aerial
`
`Vehicles & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1133, Comm’n Op., 2020 WL 5407477, at *1
`
`(Sept. 8, 2020) (“The Commission has determined to issue a limited exclusion order and cease and
`
`desist orders . . . . The Commission, however, has determined to suspend enforcement of those
`
`remedial orders, including the bond provision, pending resolution of the . . . Final Written Decision
`
`finding . . . the only claims still at issue, are unpatentable.”).
`
`
`
`Dated: November 18, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Kristina R. Cary
`Tiffany M. Knapp
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`Telephone: (617) 385-7500
`Facsimile: (617) 385-7501
`
`Email: iRobot-1252@kirkland.com
`
`Counsel for Complainant
`iRobot Corporation
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Paul F. Brinkman, P.C.
`Paul F. Brinkman, P.C.
`Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C.
`Sean M. McEldowney, P.C.
`Nichole DeJulio
`Karthik Ravishankar
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Certain Robotic Floor Cleaning Devices
`and Components Thereof
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1252
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I, Celina M. Moo-Penn, hereby certify that on November 18, 2022, copies of the foregoing
`document were filed and served upon the following parties as indicated:
`
`Katherine M. Hiner
`Acting Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 112
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`McNamara337@usitc.gov
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via Electronic Filing (EDIS)
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`On Behalf of Respondents SharkNinja Operating LLC, SharkNinja Management LLC,
`SharkNinja Management Co., SharkNinja Sales Co., EP Midco LLC, and SharkNinja Hong
`Kong Co. Ltd.
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
`
`Doris Johnson Hines
`Luke J. McCammon
`Anthony D. Del Monaco
`Kara A. Specht
`Kai Rajan
`Justin N. Mullen
`Regan J. Rundio
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`
`Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: 202.408.4000
`Facsimile: 202.408.4400
`
`Service Email: SharkNinja-iRobot-ITC@finnegan.com
`
`
`Brian A. Rosenthal
`Allen Kathir
`Kyanna Sabanoglu
`Wendy Cai
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`Telephone: 212.351.4000
`Facsimile: 212.351.4035
`
`Brian Andrea
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`
`H. Mark Lyon
`Ryan K. Iwahashi
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
`Telephone: 650.849.5300
`Facsimile: 650.849.5333
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eric T. Syu
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`Telephone: 949.451.3800
`Facsimile: 949.451.4220
`
`Service Email: SharkNinja-iRobotITC@gibsondunn.com
`
` /s/ Celina M. Moo-Penn
`Celina M. Moo-Penn, Senior Paralegal
`
`
`
`3
`
`