Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`Entered: December 5, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GEP POWER PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ARCTIC CAT INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`Entered: December 5, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GEP POWER PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ARCTIC CAT INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`GEP Power Products, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–10 of
`U.S. Patent No 7,420,822 B2, issued on September 2, 2008 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’822 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Arctic Cat Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least one challenged claim, we granted Petitioner’s request and
`instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims. Paper 12, 23–24.
`Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition
`(Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Pet. Reply).
`In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence. Paper 23 (“Mot.
`to Exclude”). Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude
`(Paper 24), and Petitioner filed a Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`(Paper 26). A final oral hearing was held on September 27, 2017. A
`transcript of that hearing has been entered in the record. Paper 30 (“Hr’g
`Tr.”).
`
`For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that all challenged claims of the ’822 patent
`are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The ʼ822 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ822 patent is titled “Power Distribution Module for Personal
`Recreational Vehicle.” The Abstract describes the subject matter as follows:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`
`A power distribution module for a personal recreational
`vehicle includes a housing and a cover. The housing defines an
`interior and includes a wall having an array of receptacle
`openings. The receptacle openings are adapted to receive and
`secure electrical components inside the housing. A distribution
`harness includes a plurality of electrical conductors and is
`coupled to the housing wherein the electrical conductors are in
`electrical communication with the electrical components inside
`the housing. The power distribution module can optionally
`include a decal to assist quick and accurate placement of the
`electrical components during the manufacturing process. A
`method for producing a personal recreational vehicle having a
`standardized housing over a range of models. The housing
`includes a component arrangement guide for locating and
`installing electrical components.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`The ’822 patent states that “[a]ll personal recreational vehicles include
`some type of power distribution system for routing and control of power and
`signals throughout the vehicle.” Id. at 1:56–58. According to the ’822
`patent, however, different types of components (e.g., fuses, diodes, and
`relays) must be housed in different locations. Id. at 1:58–62. The ’822
`patent also notes that standardization of components within and across a
`product line can reduce manufacturing costs. Id. at 1:52–55. Thus, the ’822
`patent states that “it is desirable to devise a means by which the power
`distribution module can be easily standardized for manufacturing,” and “to
`have a power distribution module that includes components other than
`fuses.” Id. at 1:63–67.
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 5, and 10 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of
`the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`
`1. A personal recreational vehicle comprising:
`an electrical distribution system for distributing electrical
`signals and power, the electrical distribution system including a
`power distribution module, wherein at least a portion of the
`electrical signals and power passes through the power
`distribution module, the power distribution module including:
`a housing having a plurality of receptacle openings in a
`substantially flat wall, the wall having a front side and a back
`side, wherein the receptacle openings are positioned in an array
`of at least three equally spaced-apart rows and at least three
`equally spaced-apart columns, the receptacle openings
`positioned to receive electrical components on the front side of
`the wall across any adjacent openings in at least one row of the
`array; and
`a distribution harness on the backside of the wall
`opposite the receptacle openings, the distribution harness
`having a plurality of electrical conductor cables, wherein the
`electrical conductor cables electrically cooperate with the
`receptacle openings for receiving electrical components.
`Id. at 7:7–27.
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify a related litigation in the District
`of Minnesota involving the ʼ822 patent titled: Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris
`Industries Inc., No. 0:16-cv-00008-WMW-HB (D. Minn.). Pet. 1; Paper 7,
`2. Petitioner indicates that it “supplies a power distribution module to [the
`defendant in that suit] that Patent Owner has accused of infringing the ‘822
`patent.” Pet. 1.
`D. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that “a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have at least a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering
`with at least two to five years of work experience relating to designing
`electrical control system components.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not
`address this definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art in its Patent
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s expert, Ralph
`Wilhelm, Jr. Ph.D., testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
`have a bachelor’s degree in either electrical or mechanical engineering with
`the same amount of experience proposed by Petitioner. Ex. 2001 ¶ 8.
`Because this definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the
`’822 patent and the asserted prior art, we agree with Patent Owner and
`determine a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor
`of science degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering with at
`least two to five years of work experience relating to designing electrical
`control system components. Thus, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition and
`apply it to our evaluation below, but note that our conclusions would remain
`the same under Petitioner’s definition.
`E. References and Other Evidence
`We instituted trial based on the following references:
`1. “Svette” (U.S. Patent No. 5,354,211; issued Oct. 11, 1994)
`(Ex. 1005);
`2. “Matsuoka” (U.S. Patent No. 6,121,548; issued Sept. 19, 2000)
`(Ex. 1003)
`3. “Boyd” (U.S. Patent No. 6,850,421 B2; filed April 1, 2002; issued
`Feb. 1, 2005) (Ex. 1002).
`In addition, Petitioner submitted an expert declaration from Mr.
`Lawrence R. Happ (Ex. 1006, “Happ Decl.”).
`Patent Owner relies on an expert declaration of Ralph Wilhelm, Jr.
`Ph.D. (Ex. 2001, “Wilhelm Decl.”), and declarations of Darrel Janisch (the
`named inventor of the ’822 patent), Del Christianson, and Kenneth Kalsnes
`(Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003; Ex. 2034 respectively) all filed with its Patent Owner
`Response. Patent Owner also filed a Second Declaration of Darrel Janisch
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`(Ex. 2036) in support of its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude. Excerpts
`from the deposition transcripts for Darrel Janisch (Ex. 1008) and Ralph
`Wilhelm, Jr. Ph.D. (Ex. 1009) have also been filed.
`F. Grounds Asserted
`Trial was instituted on the following grounds:
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 1
`Boyd
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Boyd and Svette
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Svette and Matsuoka
`
`
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 5, 9, and 10
`3, 4, and 6–8
`1–10
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under
`that standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In our Institution Decision, we determined that the “distribution
`harness” as recited in the challenged claims does not encompass the wires
`
`
`1 The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’822
`patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable
`AIA amendments, we refer to the pre–AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`103.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`(i.e., the recited “conductor cables”) standing alone, but that further
`construction of that term was not necessary at that stage of the proceeding.
`Paper 12, 5–7. We also determined that the preamble of independent claim
`1 is not limiting. Id. at 7–8.
`In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner again raises these two
`claim construction issues. PO Resp. 4–10. Beyond the two issues raised by
`Patent Owner, we determine explicit construction of any other term is not
`necessary to resolve the issues before us. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999).
`
`1. “distribution harness”
`Patent Owner contends the recited “distribution harness” is more than
`a bundle of wires and should be construed as an “apparatus that holds wires
`together.” PO Resp. 4. In support, Patent Owner relies on the claim
`language, which recites “a distribution harness . . . having a plurality of
`electrical conductor cables,” and the ’822 specification. Id. at 4–6. Patent
`Owner also relies on the testimony of its expert, Dr. Wilhelm. Id. at 6
`(citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 17).
`Petitioner contends that the recited “distribution harness”
`encompasses a bundle of wires for which an additional apparatus is not
`required. Pet. Reply 19–20. In support, Petitioner relies on a statement in
`the ’822 specification that “[t]he distribution harness 260 includes a plurality
`of electrical conductors 262, which optionally can be housed within a sheath
`269 to keep the conductors 262 in a bundle.” Id. at 20 (quoting Ex. 1001,
`5:18–20). Petitioner also states that the parties’ constructions of this term
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`may be a “distinction without a difference” because Patent Owner’s expert
`admitted that structures for securing wires were known at the time of the
`’822 invention and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood benefits of using a wire harness. Id. at 20–23 (citing Ex. 1009,
`50:19–51:7, 59:4–24).
`We determine that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent
`with our preliminary construction that a “distribution harness” does not
`encompass the wires standing alone, whereas Petitioner’s proposed
`construction is not. As Patent Owner notes, independent claim 1 recites
`“a distribution harness . . . having a plurality of electrical conductor cables.”
`Ex. 1001, 7:22–24. Independent claims 5 and 10 recite a similar limitation.
`Id. at 8:7–9, 8:39–40. Although the specification notes that “[t]he
`distribution harness 260 includes a plurality of electrical conductors 262,
`which optionally can be housed within a sheath 269 to keep the conductors
`262 in a bundle” (Ex. 1001, 5:18–20 (emphasis added)), we agree with
`Patent Owner that construing the “distribution harness” as encompassing the
`wires (i.e., the recited “conductor cables”) standing alone would render the
`term “distribution harness” superfluous.
`Moreover, the ’822 specification is consistent with Patent Owner’s
`construction. Petitioner relies on the statement discussed above in the ’822
`specification that “[t]he distribution harness 260 includes a plurality of
`electrical conductors 262, which optionally can be housed within a sheath
`269 to keep the conductors 262 in a bundle” in support of its proposed
`construction of a “distribution harness” as a “bundle of wires.” Pet. Reply
`20 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:18–20). We note, however, that even without
`sheath 269, the wires in Figure 3 remain held together by other apparatuses
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`(e.g., cable ties 264, 266, and 268). Ex. 1001, Fig. 3, 5:30–44. At the oral
`hearing, Petitioner’s counsel contended that twisting the wires together with
`no separate apparatus would be a “distribution harness,” but did not provide
`any further support in the record for such a position. Hr’g Tr. 63:9–64:11.
`We find no support in the record for twisted wires standing alone being a
`“distribution harness.”
`For the reasons discussed above, we determine Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction of “distribution harness” is consistent with our
`preliminary construction and with the intrinsic evidence. Accordingly, we
`construe the recited “distribution harness” as an apparatus that holds wires
`(i.e., the recited “conductor cables”) together.
`2. Claim Preambles
`The preamble of independent claim 1 recites “[a] personal recreational
`vehicle”; the preamble of independent claim 5 recites “[a]n electrical
`distribution module for a vehicle”; and the preamble of independent claim
`10 recites “[a] power distribution module.” Ex. 1001, 7:7, 7:41–42, 8:28.
`Patent Owner contends the preambles of independent claims 1, 5, and 10 are
`limiting for the following reasons: “(1) the specification consistently
`describes the invention of the ‘822 patent as a PDM [power distribution
`module] for a vehicle; (2) a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would
`understand the preambles as limiting in view of the specification; and (3)
`Petitioner treats the preambles as limiting.” PO Resp. 7. In particular,
`Patent Owner contends “[t]he preambles recite limitations and give life,
`meaning and vitality to the claims, and so should be read as limiting.” Id. In
`support, Patent Owner cites portions of the specification that mention a
`“personal recreational vehicle.” Id. at 7–9 (providing numerous citations to
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`Ex. 1001). Patent Owner also contends Petitioner treats the claim preambles
`as limiting “by mapping the preambles to alleged prior art.” Id. at 9. Patent
`Owner further relies on Dr. Wilhelm’s testimony that “a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would give meaning to the ‘vehicle’ terms in the preambles in
`view of the specification.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). Petitioner
`contends the claim preambles are not limiting and that Dr. Wilhelm’s
`testimony does not support otherwise. Pet. Reply 27–28.
`As an initial matter, in the claim construction section of its brief,
`Patent Owner directs its arguments to the preambles of all three independent
`claims. PO Resp. 7–10. In addressing Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds,
`however, Patent Owner addresses only the preamble of independent claim 1.
`Id. at 37, 40–41. Thus, as we did in our Institution Decision, we determine
`we need address only whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. Paper 12,
`7–8; see Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (holding that “only those terms need
`be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy”).2
`“[A] preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes
`a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase
`does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina
`Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir.
`2002). In addition, “preambles describing the use of an invention generally
`
`
`2 We also note that Patent Owner’s counsel conceded at the oral hearing that
`an independent claim in a related patent does not recite a personal
`recreational vehicle, and Patent Owner does not seek to read that limitation
`into that claim. Hr’g Tr. 55:4–56:9. We also find that neither claim 5 nor
`claim 10 recites a personal recreational vehicle, and we do not read any
`such limitation into either claim.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`do not limit the claims because the patentability of apparatus or composition
`claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that
`structure.” Id.
`We determined in our Institution Decision that the claim body of
`claim 1 describes a structurally complete invention. Paper 12, 7–8. We are
`not persuaded to disturb that determination here. In particular, claim 1
`recites limitations including, inter alia, a housing, a plurality of receptacle
`openings, and a distribution harness having a plurality of electrical
`conductors. The body of that claim does not recite a personal recreational
`vehicle. Thus, we determine the claim body of claim 1 “describes a
`structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase
`does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” See
`Catalina, 289 F.3d at 809.
`We further find that Dr. Wilhelm’s testimony is entitled to little
`weight in addressing this issue. Dr. Wilhelm testified that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would give meaning to the ‘vehicle’ terms in the
`preambles since the specification consistently describes the invention in the
`context of a recreational vehicle with a PDM or as a PDM for a recreational
`vehicle.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 22. We find that whether a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would give meaning to terms in a preamble is not the proper inquiry
`to determine whether those terms in a preamble limit the scope of the claim.
`Mr. Wilhelm conceded at his deposition that he had not addressed in his
`declaration whether the claims recite structurally complete inventions.
`Ex. 1009, 36:17–25.
`We are also not persuaded that we should alter our preliminary
`determination on this issue based on Petitioner’s alleged treatment of the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`claim preambles as limiting “by mapping the preambles to alleged prior art,”
`as Patent Owner contends. PO Resp. 9. We agree with Patent Owner that
`Petitioner has the burden of persuasion to establish unpatentability (id.), but
`we do not view Petitioner’s treatment of the preambles in its analysis of its
`unpatentability grounds as a binding admission that those preambles are
`limiting.
`Finally, we disagree with Patent Owner that the axiom that different
`words in a claim have different meanings requires us to find the preamble of
`claim 1 is limiting (id. at 10). Specifically, although we agree with Patent
`Owner that not all of the claim preambles recite a “vehicle” limitation (id.),
`the fact that the patent drafter chose to include this term in some claims and
`not others does not convert that preamble term into a claim limitation.
`For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the preamble of
`claim 1 is not limiting.
`
`B. Asserted Anticipation by Boyd
`1. Overview of Boyd
`Boyd is titled “Fuse Relay Box Apparatus, Methods and Articles of
`Manufacture,” and the application leading to Boyd was filed on April 1,
`2002. Ex. 1002, at [54], [22]. Petitioner contends Boyd is prior art under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 11.
`Boyd discloses a “fuse relay box” with a cover and base, where the
`base includes “a number of channels adapted for use by either a fuse or
`relay.” Ex. 1002, Abstract. Figures 1 and 2 of Boyd as annotated by
`Petitioner (Pet. 12–13) are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 1 of Boyd depicts a preferred embodiment of Boyd’s fuse
`relay box with electrical components installed therein. Ex. 1002, 2:65–66.
`Annotated Figure 2 of Boyd depicts the underside of base 20 with a matrix
`of channels 30. Id. at 3:51–55.
`2. Status of Boyd as Prior Art
`Petitioner has the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a
`preponderance of the evidence, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner.
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner also has the burden to show that a reference is
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`prior art to certain claims under a relevant section of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Id.
`Here, it is undisputed that Boyd has a filing date of April 1, 2002, and the
`’822 patent has an effective filing date of October 29, 2002. Ex. 1001, at
`[63]; Ex. 1002, at [22]; Pet. 10; PO Resp. 11. In addition, Petitioner
`acknowledges that the Examiner issued a rejection over Boyd during the
`prosecution of the ’822 patent. Pet. 5. In response to that rejection, Patent
`Owner submitted a declaration from the named inventor of the ’822 patent,
`Darrel Janisch, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131, allegedly swearing behind Boyd.
`Ex. 1007, Aug. 6, 2007 Janisch Decl. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged that
`this declaration is insufficient. Pet. 10–11. We determine that Petitioner
`met its initial burden by alleging Boyd is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`and calling into question the sufficiency of Mr. Janisch’s declaration.
`Following institution, Patent Owner contends that Boyd is not prior
`art because (1) Patent Owner can antedate Boyd and (2) Boyd was not
`created “by another” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). PO Resp. 11–37. We
`address each of these contentions below.
`a. Antedating Boyd
`Patent Owner contends Boyd is not prior art because it can antedate
`Boyd. PO Resp. 11–25. After Petitioner met its initial burden to show Boyd
`is prior art, as discussed above, the burden of production shifts to Patent
`Owner to argue or produce evidence that the asserted reference is not prior
`art. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. If Patent Owner meets that
`burden of production, the burden shifts back to Petitioner. Id. We
`emphasize that the ultimate burden of establishing unpatentability always
`remains with Petitioner.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`
`To antedate, Patent Owner contends Darrel Janisch, the named
`inventor of the ’822 patent, conceived of the inventions claimed in the ’822
`patent prior to Boyd’s filing date (PO Resp. 12–20) and that Mr. Janisch was
`diligent in reducing these inventions to practice through the constructive
`reduction to practice date (id. at 20–25). We have reviewed both parties’
`arguments and evidence, and we determine, viewing the record as a whole,
`that the evidence supports a determination that Patent Owner has not
`antedated Boyd.
`An inventor may swear behind a reference if he was the first to
`conceive of an invention, and then connects the conception of his invention
`with its reduction to practice by reasonable diligence on his part, such that
`conception and diligence are substantially one continuous act. Mahurkar v.
`C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A party alleging
`diligence must account for the entire critical period. Griffith v. Kanamaru,
`816 F.2d 624, 626 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 919
`(CCPA 1966). While “[a] patent owner need not prove the inventor
`continuously exercised reasonable diligence throughout the critical period[,]
`it must show there was reasonably continuous diligence.” Perfect Surgical
`Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(citing Tyco Healthcare Grp. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 774 F.3d 968,
`975 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d
`1356, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). For reasonably continuous diligence, an
`inventor is not required to work on reducing his invention to practice every
`day during the critical period, and periods of inactivity are not automatically
`fatal to a patent owner’s claim of reasonable diligence. Id. The Federal
`Circuit has also counseled that the point of this analysis is not to scour patent
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`owner’s corroborating evidence to identify gaps in activity, but rather to
`view the evidence as a whole to assure that the invention was not abandoned
`or unreasonably delayed. Id.
`A party alleging diligence, however, must provide corroboration with
`evidence that is specific both as to facts and dates. Gould, 363 F.2d at 920;
`Kendall v. Searles, 173 F.2d 986, 993 (CCPA 1949). A “rule of reason”
`analysis is applied to determine whether the inventor’s testimony has been
`corroborated, and under such an analysis, “[a]n evaluation of all pertinent
`evidence must be made so that a sound determination of the credibility of the
`inventor’s story may be reached.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195
`(Fed. Cir. 1993). The rule of reason, however, does not dispense with the
`need for corroboration of diligence that is specific as to dates and facts.
`Gould, 363 F.2d at 920; Kendall, 173 F.2d at 993; see Coleman v. Dines,
`754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`Patent Owner provides a declaration from Mr. Janisch that addresses
`both conception and diligence in reducing the inventions covered by the
`claims of the ’822 patent to practice. Ex. 2002. Mr. Janisch testifies that he
`conceived of the PDM described and claimed in the ’822 patent at least as
`early as April 1, 2002. During the relevant time period, Mr. Janisch was an
`employee at Arctic Cat, and he testifies that Arctic Cat contracted with Tyco
`Electronics, Inc. to manufacture the PDM according to his designs. Id. ¶ 11.
`For conception, Mr. Janisch provides a table that correlates some of the
`claim limitations to statements in Patent Owner’s exhibits. Id. ¶ 14. Mr.
`Janisch further contends that the PDM was diligently reduced to practice
`from just before April 1, 2002 until October 29, 2002, the constructive
`reduction to practice of his inventions. Id. ¶¶ 15, 16. He testifies that he,
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`and others at Arctic Cat, directed Tyco to diligently reduce the PDM to
`practice. Id. ¶ 17. Mr. Janisch provides a table showing activities for date
`ranges covering the entire critical period. Id. ¶ 19.
`Patent Owner also provides declarations from two Arctic Cat
`employees, Mr. Christianson and Mr. Kalsnes. Regarding diligence, Mr.
`Christianson testifies:
`I worked with Darrel [Janisch] and his team from just before
`April 1, 2002 through October 29, 2002. During that time, I
`observed Darrel and his team diligently work on the PDM and
`use Tyco to make and test prototypes and various components. I
`participated in shop discussions, saw technical drawings, and
`was involved in testing for Darrel’s PDM prototypes during that
`time.
`Ex. 2003 ¶ 14. Mr. Kalsnes’ testimony does not mention Tyco. See Ex.
`2034. He testifies that: “I worked with Darrel [Janisch] and his team from
`before April 1, 2002 through October 29, 2002. I observed Darrel and his
`team diligently work on the PDM during that time. I participated in
`discussions and meetings and reviewed layouts regarding the PDM.” Id. ¶ 9.
`Patent Owner further submits a number of documents that it alleges
`corroborate Mr. Janisch’s conception and diligence to reduction to practice.
`See Exs. 2004–2033.
`We determine Patent Owner’s evidence is insufficient to show
`reasonably continuous diligence throughout the entire critical period. In
`particular, Mr. Janisch’s declaration purports to show continuous diligence
`during the critical period in the table in paragraph 19 (Exhibit 2002).
`However, each row in that table refers to a date range and generally
`describes documents that bookend the date range, without sufficiently
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`detailed explanation of events occurring between the bookend
`communications.
`For example, for the period of April 1, 2002 to April 29, 2002, Mr.
`Janisch cites documents dated April 1 (Ex. 2013), April 2 (Ex. 2014), and
`April 29 (Ex. 2015). In Exhibit 2013 (April 1), Mr. Janisch sends Tyco
`approval for a PDM specification and test proposal dated March 15, 2002.
`The record does not include that specification and proposal, but Mr. Janisch
`testifies “that further testing was conducted.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 19. Exhibit 2014
`reflects a drawing dated April 2, 2002, which Mr. Janisch testifies shows an
`embodiment “that was being developed at that time,” but other than further
`testing, Mr. Janisch does not identify any development activities that were
`occurring. In Exhibit 2015 (April 29), Tyco sends Mr. Janisch results of
`“preliminary heat rise tests of Arctic Cat PDM, sealed unit, STL sample.”
`Mr. Janisch testifies that Exhibit 2015 shows that “Tyco had been diligently
`testing the PDM at my request, such as testing heat given off by the PDM.”
`Ex. 2002 ¶ 19. Other than the above, Mr. Janisch testifies generally that he
`“continued to work on developing the PDM both internally and with Tyco.”
`Id.; see Pet. Reply 7–9. Because Mr. Christianson’s and Mr. Kalsnes’
`testimony is not specific as to facts and dates, neither provides additional
`details on any activities occurring at Arctic Cat or Tyco from April 1 to
`April 29, 2002. See Ex. 2003, 2034.
`As another example, Mr. Janisch includes rows in his table for August
`16, 2002 to October 18, 2002; October 18, 2002 to October 29, 2002; and
`October 29, 2002. Ex. 2002 ¶ 19. In these rows, Mr. Janisch cites
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`communications dated August 16, October 18, and October 28. Id.3 In
`Exhibit 2021 (August 16), Mr. Janisch sends Tyco approval for product
`specifications and design objectives, and authorizes Tyco to proceed with
`testing. In Exhibit 2022 (October 18), Tyco provides Arctic Cat with a
`quotation for PDM bases and covers. In Exhibit 2023 (October 28), Tyco
`sends Mr. Janisch PDM drawing files. Constructive reduction to practice
`occurred on October 29, 2002, when the application leading to the ’822
`patent was filed. Ex. 1001, at [63]. Other than the facts in the three exhibits
`discussed above, Mr. Janisch testifies for this time period that “Tyco
`diligently performed testing on PDMs”; he “continued to integrate the PDM
`design into [Arctic Cat’s] vehicle harness designs . . . [which] included
`electrical wire routing to and from the PDM, and location and mounting of
`the PDM within various vehicle chassis”; and he “continued to test and
`develop the PDM.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 19; see Pet. Reply 11–12.
`We highlight these two exemplary time periods, not to scour the
`record for gaps in activity, but rather to highlight the character of Patent
`Owner’s evidence. The critical period in this case spans 211 days (April 1,
`2002 to October 29, 2002), and the two exemplary time periods above
`account for 102 days of the critical period, or almost half. During these two
`time periods, Patent Owner presents evidence that Tyco was performing
`testing on the PDM, but the record contains little evidence of what that
`testing entailed and no evidence of the amount of time any testing was
`
`
`3 Patent Owner also cites to Exhibit 2033 as evidence of diligence during
`this time period. PO Resp. 21. Exhibit 2033, however, is dated September
`25, 2001 (not 2002). Mr. Janisch’s declaration includes the correct date for
`this exhibit and relies on that document as evidence of conception, not
`diligence. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 14.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01388
`Patent 7,420,822 B2
`
`expected to take. For example, the record does not include the PDM
`specification and test proposal or the PDM development timeline referenced
`in Exhibit 2013, the test results referenced in Exhibit 2015, or the product
`specifications and design objectives referenced in Exhibit 2021. We find
`that, in thi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
