`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`
`
`
` Entered: February 18, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-002891
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2018-
`01383, has been joined as a party to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Patent Owner, Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., filed a Request for
`Rehearing (Paper 23, “Req. Reh’g”) of our Final Written Decision
`(Paper 22, “Decision” or “Dec.”) addressing the patentability of claims 1, 3,
`5–11, 13–18, and 20 of U.S. Patent 8,872,646 (Ex. 1001, “the ’646 patent”).
`In its Request, Patent Owner seeks reconsideration of our Final Written
`Decision. Req. Reh’g 1. For the reasons provided below, Patent Owner’s
`Request is denied.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the
`party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where
`each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party
`challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be
`modified. Id.
`In our Decision, we concluded Petitioner had met its burden of
`showing that claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 17, and 20 would have been
`obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan, and Mizell and that claims 8,
`16, and 18 would have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, McMahan,
`Mizell, and Park. Dec. 20–21.
`Patent Owner’s sole argument raised in contesting our determination
`is that we “overlooked, certain positions presented in Patent Owner’s
`Response directed to the claim language ‘remov[ing] the one or more
`glitches from the motion data.’” Req. Reh’g 1. We disagree.
`Patent Owner asserts that we “misunderst[ood] Patent Owner’s
`argument concerning certain deficiencies in the Petition,” because “Patent
`Owner’s position is [not] entirely dependent upon the construction it had
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`offered for the ‘glitches’ term, which the Board rejected.” Req. Reh’g 2.
`Patent Owner asserts that additional arguments were presented at pages 12–
`15 of the Patent Owner Response (Paper 11), which the “Final Written
`Decision does not expressly address, and thus appears to have overlooked.”
`Id. at 2–4.
`We disagree with Patent Owner because there is no substantive
`difference between Patent Owner’s glitch claim-construction argument and
`its argument distinguishing McMahan’s error removal from the claimed
`glitch removal. Both arguments seek to distinguish the claimed glitch
`removal over McMahan’s error correction because McMahan’s errors do not
`reflect actual motion. Compare Paper 11, 6 (claim-construction argument
`that a glitch must “refer to actual motion data”), with id. at 14 (arguing that
`the claimed glitch removal is distinguishable over McMahan’s “processing
`an erroneous output which, due to its impossible value, is never included as
`part of anything that can be considered motion data (and thus it cannot be
`removed from such data)”); see also id. at 12 (asserting that “Petitioner’s
`theory fails at the outset because . . . the ‘error’ described in McMahan is an
`impossible value that is never included as part of the motion data” and
`“[t]hus the ‘error’ described in McMahan (1) is not a ‘glitch’ as claimed . . .
`and (2) cannot be removed from ‘the motion data’ if it was never part of ‘the
`motion data’ in the first place”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Having considered Patent Owner’s Request, Patent Owner has not
`persuaded us, for the reasons discussed, that we misapprehended or
`overlooked any matter. Thus, Patent Owner has not demonstrated we should
`modify our Decision with respect to any of claims 1, 3, 5–11, 13–18, and 20.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00289
`Patent 8,872,646 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Thomas W. Kelton
`Thomas.kelton.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Calmann Clements
`Calmann.clements.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Jamie McDole
`Jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan Loveless
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Sean Burdick
`Sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`Brett Mangrum
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`James Etheridge
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`
`Jeffrey Huang
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`5
`
`
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
