Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 52
`Filed: June 27, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`1964 EARS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JERRY HARVEY AUDIO HOLDING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01091
`Patent 8,925,674 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Motion for Partial Adverse Judgment
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 52
`Filed: June 27, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`1964 EARS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JERRY HARVEY AUDIO HOLDING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01091
`Patent 8,925,674 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Motion for Partial Adverse Judgment
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01091
`Patent 8,925,674 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`On March 15, 2017, 1964 EARS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability
`company (“Petitioner”)1, filed a Petition (Paper 1, 5–6 “Pet.”) to institute
`inter partes review of claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,925,674 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’674 patent”) on a multiplicity of grounds. On July 6, 2017,
`Jerry Harvey Audio Holdings, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). On October 3, 2017, upon
`consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we instituted inter
`partes review of claims 1–11, 13–18, and 20 of the ’674 patent, but not
`claims 12, 19, and 21 of the ’674 patent. Paper 8 (“Decision to Institute”),
`1–2, 62–63; see also 37 C.F.R § 42.1(b); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS
`Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) (“the SAS decision”). In view
`of that decision, and the Board’s guidance on the impact of that decision on
`pending proceedings, we modified our Decision to Institute to institute inter
`partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds. Paper 43, 3. To
`accommodate the additional briefing necessitated by this modification, we
`extended the 1-year statutory due date for entering a Final Written Decision
`in this proceeding and entered an Extended Scheduling Order. Papers 45,
`46.
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies 1964 Ears LLC, Reshell LLC, Magrepha Sound LLC,
`and Masters Touch 2, LLC, all Washington limited liability companies, 64
`Audio Inc., VIB Marketing Corp., Shell & Casting Corp., Sklar, Inc., and
`Digital Ear Corp., all Washington corporations, as real parties-in-interest.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01091
`Patent 8,925,674 B2
`
`
`On June 13, 2018, upon authorization, Petitioner filed a Request for
`Partial Adverse Judgment on the following claims and ground:
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and
`13
`
`Saggio2
`
`§ 102
`
`1
`
`Paper 49 (“Mot.”), 3. Petitioner’s request for adverse judgment does not
`extend to any originally instituted grounds nor to any of the claims originally
`instituted under those grounds. Id. at 3–4. Petitioner’s request for adverse
`judgment also does not extend to newly instituted claims 12, 19, and 21, nor
`to any of the grounds presented in the Petition for the newly instituted
`claims. Id. at 4. Our authorization permitted Patent Owner to file an
`Opposition to Petitioner’s motion no later than June 19, 2018. Paper 51, 5.
`Patent Owner did not file an opposition. Accordingly, for the reasons
`discussed below, we grant Petitioner’s motion, and enter judgment adverse
`to Petitioner on ground 1 of the Petition, which is identified above.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Rule 42.73(b) permits a party to “request judgment against itself at
`any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). The Board’s
`guidance3 on the impact of the SAS decision on inter partes reviews allows
`Petitioner to request partial adverse judgment on previously non-instituted
`grounds in order to limit the scope of a proceeding to previously instituted
`
`
`2 U.S. Pub. App. 2011/0058702 A1 (Ex. 1004).
`3 “Frequently Asked Questions about SAS Implications (June 5, 2018),
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sas_qas_20180605.pdf
`(“FAQ guidance”) (last accessed June 20, 2018). See also Ex. 1048.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01091
`Patent 8,925,674 B2
`
`grounds. Specifically, in answer to question B12 of the FAQ guidance,
`which asks, “[i]f the parties cannot agree to waive additional claims, is there
`anything a party can do on its own to limit the scope of the proceeding,” the
`FAQ guidance indicates “[t]he Petitioner can request adverse judgment on
`claims and/or grounds at anytime.” See Ex. 1048, B12.
` As discussed above, Petitioner requests adverse judgment on ground
`1 raised in the Petition. Mot. 3. Under the circumstances presented here, we
`find it is appropriate to grant Petitioner’s request for adverse judgment on
`this ground because doing so will significantly simplify the issues to be
`addressed at trial.
`Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, it is:
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01091
`Patent 8,925,674 B2
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for partial adverse
`judgment is granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner has not shown, by a
`preponderance of evidence, that claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and 13 of the
`’674 patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Saggio.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01091
`Patent 8,925,674 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Hillary A. Brooks
`Delfina S. Homen
`hillary@brooksquinn.com
`delfina@brooksquinn.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Daniel B. Ravicher
`David J. Garrod
`dan@ravicher.com
`dave@ravicher.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
