`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 25
`Entered: May 3, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FISHER & PAYKEL HEALTHCARE LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RESMED LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2017-00272 (Patent 9,242,062 B2)
`IPR2017-00340 (Patent 8,950,404 B2)
`IPR2017-00501 (Patent 9,027,556 B2)
`IPR2017-00632 (Patent 8,944,061 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 We use this caption to indicate that this Order applies to, and is entered in,
`each of the four listed cases. The parties are not authorized to use this
`caption.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00272 (Patent 9,242,062 B2)
`IPR2017-00340 (Patent 8,950,404 B2)
`IPR2017-00501 (Patent 9,027,556 B2)
`IPR2017-00632 (Patent 8,944,061 B2)
`
`
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in
`the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S. Apr.
`24, 2018). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that Petitioner
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one
`of the challenged claims of the ’062 patent is unpatentable. IPR2017-00272,
`Paper 8, 27; see also IPR2017–00340, Paper 8, 52 (making the same
`determination with respect to the ’404 patent); IPR2017–00501, Paper 8, 42
`(making the same determination with respect to the ’556 patent); IPR2017–
`00632, Paper 8, 24 (making the same determination with respect to the ’061
`patent). We modify our institution decision in each of the four proceedings
`addressed in this Order to institute on all of the challenged claims and all of
`the grounds presented in the Petitions for those proceedings.
`An initial conference call between the Board and the parties was
`conducted on April 27, 2018 to discuss the initial impact of the SAS Inst.,
`Inc. decision. See, e.g., IPR2017-00272, Exhibit 1022 (providing a
`transcript of the call). The parties shall confer to discuss the impact, if any,
`of this Order on the current schedule for the four proceedings. If, after
`conferring, the parties wish to otherwise change the schedule or submit
`further briefing, the parties must, within one week of the date of this Order,
`request a conference call with the panel to seek authorization for such
`changes or briefing.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00272 (Patent 9,242,062 B2)
`IPR2017-00340 (Patent 8,950,404 B2)
`IPR2017-00501 (Patent 9,027,556 B2)
`IPR2017-00632 (Patent 8,944,061 B2)
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that our institution decision is modified to include review
`of all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the Petition for each of
`IPR2017-00272, IPR2017–00340, IPR2017–00501, and IPR2017–00632;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner shall confer
`to determine whether they desire any changes to the schedule or any further
`briefing, and, if so, shall request a conference call with the panel to seek
`authorization for such changes or briefing within one week of the date of this
`Order.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00272 (Patent 9,242,062 B2)
`IPR2017-00340 (Patent 8,950,404 B2)
`IPR2017-00501 (Patent 9,027,556 B2)
`IPR2017-00632 (Patent 8,944,061 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Sheila N. Swaroop
`Brenton R. Babcock
`Benjamin J. Everton
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2sns@knobbe.com
`2brb@knobbe.com
`2bje@knobbe.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Michael T. Hawkins
`Michael J. Kane
`Christopher C. Hoff
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`hawkins@fr.com
`kane@fr.com
`hoff@fr.com
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Paul Bowen
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`ptb@nixonvan.com
`
`4
`
`