Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,393,331
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,393,331
`Issue Date: March 12, 2013
`Title: Electronic Atomization Cigarette
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00627
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,393,331 PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`Page
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1 
`A.  Notice of Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................ 1 
`B. 
`Notice of Related Matters ..................................................................... 2 
`1. 
`Related Litigations ...................................................................... 3 
`2. 
`Related Proceedings Before the Board ....................................... 4 
`3. 
`Pending Patent Applications ....................................................... 6 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................... 7 
`C. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 8 
`D. 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 8 
`IV. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT
`OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................... 8 
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 12 
`VI.  STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ................................................................................................ 12 
`A. 
`Background Information for the 331 Patent ........................................ 12 
`B. 
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”) ..................... 14 
`C. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 15 
`D.  Description of the Prior Art ................................................................. 22 
`1. 
`Takeuchi (Ex. 1003) .................................................................. 22 
`GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-2 OF THE 331 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS ANTICIPATED BY
`TAKEUCHI ......................................................................................... 25 
`1. 
`Claim 1 Is Anticipated by Takeuchi ......................................... 26 
`a. 
`“An electronic cigarette comprising” ............................. 26 
`b. 
`“a housing” ..................................................................... 27 
`c. 
`“a mouth piece on the housing” ...................................... 28 
`i
`
`
`E. 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`d. 
`e. 
`f. 
`g. 
`
`h. 
`i. 
`j. 
`
`k. 
`l. 
`m. 
`
`n. 
`
`“an LED at a first end of the housing” ........................... 29 
`“an air inlet leading into the housing” ............................ 31 
`“a battery within the housing” ........................................ 33 
`“an electronic circuit board within the
`housing” .......................................................................... 34 
`“a sensor within the housing” ......................................... 37 
`“an atomizer within the housing” ................................... 40 
`“a stream passage within the housing
`leading from the inlet to the atomizer” ........................... 45 
`“a cavity arranged in the atomizer” ................................ 47 
`“a liquid-supply within the housing” .............................. 52 
`“an aerosol passage leading from the
`atomizer to the mouthpiece” ........................................... 54 
`“with the liquid-supply in physical contact
`with the atomizer”........................................................... 56 
`“a heating element within the cavity” ............................ 62 
`o. 
`Claim 2 Is Anticipated by Takeuchi ......................................... 67 
`a. 
`“An electronic cigarette, comprising” ............................ 67 
`b. 
`“a housing” ..................................................................... 67 
`c. 
`“a mouth piece on the housing” ...................................... 67 
`d. 
`“an LED at a first end of the housing” ........................... 67 
`e. 
`“an air inlet for providing air into the
`housing” .......................................................................... 67 
`“a battery and a sensor electrically
`connected to an electronic circuit board
`within the housing, with the sensor in a
`stream passage in the housing” ....................................... 68 
`“an atomizer within the housing, with the
`atomizer having a heating element within a
`cavity, and with the atomizer making
`contact with a liquid-supply, to provide for
`movement of liquid to the atomizer via
`capillary action” .............................................................. 70 
`ii
`
`
`2. 
`
`f. 
`
`g. 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`h. 
`
`F. 
`
`“an aerosol passage extending from the
`atomizer to the mouthpiece” ........................................... 72 
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1-2 OF THE 331 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER TAKEUCHI ................... 72 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 73 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES 
`Cascades Canada ULC v. SCA Hygiene Prods AB,
`IPR2017-01921 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2018).............................................................. 10
`Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed.Cir.2002) ................................................................................ 20
`Cisco Sys. et al v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01276 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)............................................................ 21
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`579 U. S. ____ (2016) .......................................................................................... 15
`Donghee America, Inc. v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and
`Research,
`IPR2017-01654 (PTAB, petition filed June 21, 2017) ........................................ 11
`Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01339 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2016) ............................................................ 21
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 15
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech.,
`IPR2017-00249 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2017) ........................................................... 11
`Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GMBH & KG,
`IPR2012-00004 (PTAB, petition filed Sept. 16, 2012) ........................................ 12
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill.,
`IPR2013-00005 (PTAB, petition filed Oct. 2, 2012) ........................................... 12
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2015-00483 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2015) ............................................................. 11
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company V. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2016-01272 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) ........................................................... 21
`RF Controls, LLC. v. A1 Packaging Solutions, Inc.
`IPR2014-01536 (P.T.A.B. March 28, 2016) ........................................................ 21
`Samsung Elec. Am. v. Uniloc,
`IPR2017-01801 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2018).............................................................. 10
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`STATUTES 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................. 1, 7, 8, 9
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ..................................................................................... 1, 2, 12
`RULES 
`Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42) .............. 2, 15
`REGULATIONS 
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ................................................................................................. 1, 8, 15
`
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Pat. No. 8,393,331 (“331 patent”)
`1002 Expert Declaration of Robert Sturges, Ph.D.
`1003 U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,268 (“Takeuchi”)
`1004 U.S. Pat. No. 5,743,251 (“Howell”)
`1005 U.S. Pat. No. 6,598,607 (“Adiga”)
`1006 U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,841 (“Voges”)
`1007 U.S. Pat. No. 4,990,939 (“Sekiya”)
`1008 U.S. Pat. No. 4,771,295 (“Baker”)
`Institution Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015 (Paper 8), NJOY, Inc. v.
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2014-01289 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug.
`14, 2014)
`Termination Order dated Nov. 24, 2015 (Paper 39), NJOY, Inc. v.
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2014-01289 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug.
`14, 2014)
`Institution Decision dated Dec. 14, 2016 (Paper 11), Nu Mark LLC v.
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01299 (P.T.A.B., petition filed June
`28, 2016)
`Termination Order dated Jan. 5, 2017 (Paper 16), Nu Mark LLC v.
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01299 (P.T.A.B., petition filed June
`28, 2016)
`Institution Decision dated Dec. 29, 2016 (Paper 13), Nu Mark LLC v.
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01438 (P.T.A.B., petition filed July
`14, 2016)
`1014 Compilation Of The 331 Patent File History
`1015 U.S. Pat. No. 5,703,633 (“Gehrer”)
`1016 U.S. Pat. No. 5,745,985 (“Ghosh”)
`1017 U.S. Pat. No. 4,208,005 (“Nate”)
`1018 U.S. Pat. No. 4,945,448 (“Bremenour”)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1019
`
`Excerpts from James W. Dally, Packaging of Electronic Systems:
`A Mechanical Engineering Approach (John Corrigan and John M.
`Morriss eds., 1990) (“Dally”)
`1020 U.S. Pat. No. 2,057,353 (“Whittemore”)
`1021 U.S. Pat. No. 3,200,819 (“Gilbert”)
`1022 U.S. Pat. No. 6,501,052 (“Cox 052”)
`1023 U.S. Pat. No. 6,234,167 (“Cox 167”)
`1024 U.S. Pat. No. 5,124,200 (“Mallonee”)
`1025 U.S. Pat. No. 4,797,692 (“Ims”)
`1026 U.S. Pat. No. 5,666,977 (“Higgins”)
`1027 EP Pat. App. Pub. No. EP 0 358 114 A2 (“Brooks 114”)
`1028 U.S. Pat. No. 7,284,424 (“Kanke”)
`1029 U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,265 (“Dux”)
`1030 U.S. Pat. No. 6,620,659 (“Emmma”)
`1031 U.S. Pat. No. 4,676,237 (“Wood”)
`1032 Chinese Utility Model Pub. No. 1233436A (“Hongbin”) (including
`certified translation)
`Excerpts from The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus (Ex.
`2007), Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01299
`(P.T.A.B., petition filed June 28, 2016)
`1034 Reserved
`Teleconference Transcript (Ex. 3001), Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01299 (P.T.A.B., petition filed June 28,
`2016)
`Patent Owner's Preliminary Response to Petition for Inter Partes
`Review dated Oct. 7, 2016 (Paper 8), Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings
`1 B.V., IPR2016-01299 (P.T.A.B., petition filed June 28, 2016)
`Excerpts from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11th ed. (Ex.
`2003), Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01299
`(P.T.A.B., petition filed June 28, 2016)
`
`1033
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`vii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`
`
`Excerpts from Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 2nd ed. (Ex. 2030), Nu
`Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01299 (P.T.A.B.,
`petition filed June 28, 2016)
`Institution Decision dated Feb. 6, 2018 (Paper 8), Samsung Elecs. Am.
`v. Uniloc, IPR2017-01801 (P.T.A.B., petition filed July 20, 2017)
`Institution Decision dated Feb. 5, 2018 (Paper 9), Cascades Canada
`ULC v. SCA Hygiene Prods AB, IPR2017-01921 (P.T.A.B., petition
`filed Aug. 7, 2017)
`Institution Decision dated Jan. 19, 2018 (Paper 9), Donghee America,
`Inc. v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and Research, IPR2017-
`01654 (P.T.A.B., petition filed June 21, 2017)
`Institution Decision dated May 18, 2017 (Paper 9), Limelight Networks,
`Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., IPR2017-00249 (P.T.A.B., petition filed
`Nov. 11, 2016)
`Institution Decision dated July 15, 2015 (Paper 10), Microsoft Corp. v.
`Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, IPR2015-00483 (P.T.A.B., petition
`filed Dec. 23, 2014)
`Institution Decision dated Mar. 13, 2013 (Paper 19), Micron Tech., Inc.
`v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., IPR2013-00005 (P.T.A.B., petition
`filed Oct. 2, 2012)
`Institution Decision dated Jan. 24, 2013 (Paper 18), Macauto U.S.A. v.
`BOS GMBH & KG, IPR2012-00004 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Sept. 16,
`2012)
`Institution Decision dated Dec. 30, 2016 (Paper 11), R.J. Reynolds
`Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01272 (P.T.A.B.,
`petition filed July 2, 2016)
`Final Written Decision dated Jan. 25, 2016 (Paper 39), Google, Inc. v.
`Visual Real Estate, Inc., IPR2014-01339 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug.
`20, 2014)
`Final Written Decision dated Feb. 17, 2016 (Paper 40), Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`et al. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2014-01276 (P.T.A.B., petition
`filed Aug. 12, 2014)
`Final Written Decision dated Mar. 28, 2016 (Paper 20), RF Controls,
`LLC v. A-1 Packaging Sols., Inc., IPR2014-01536 (P.T.A.B., petition
`filed Sept. 23, 2014)
`
`viii
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, R.J. Reynolds Vapor
`
`
`
`Company (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,393,331 to Hon, titled “Electronic Atomization
`
`Cigarette” (“331 patent,” Ex. 1001). Patent Office records indicate that Fontem
`
`Holdings 1 B.V. is the patent owner (“PO”). Petitioner authorizes the Patent and
`
`Trademark Office to charge Deposit Account No. 23-1925 for the fees set forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this IPR Petition, and authorizes payment of any
`
`additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`This Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-2 of the 331
`
`patent are unpatentable. As explained herein, claims 1-2 are unpatentable as
`
`anticipated under § 102 or obvious under § 103 based on U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,268
`
`(“Takeuchi,” Ex. 1003).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that this petition be granted.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Notice of Real Party-in-Interest
`For purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) only,
`
`Petitioner identifies the real-parties-in-interest as R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., RAI Innovations Company (the direct parent
`
`company of R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.), R.J.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Reynolds Tobacco Company, and RAI Services Company. Each of the foregoing
`
`entities is a direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American
`
`Inc. Although Petitioner does not believe that Reynolds American Inc. is a real
`
`party-in-interest (see Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759-60
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42)), Reynolds American Inc. and its
`
`wholly owned subsidiaries (direct and indirect) nevertheless agree to be bound by
`
`any final written decision in these proceedings to the same extent as a real party-in-
`
`interest. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending
`
`prosecution concerning the 331 patent. Petitioner is a defendant in the following
`
`litigation involving the 331 patent: Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Company, No. 1:17-cv-00175 (M.D.N.C., filed March 1, 2017)
`
`(consolidated with lead case 1:16-cv-01255 (M.D.N.C.)). Patent Owner has
`
`alleged that Reynolds infringes claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the 331 patent, as well as
`
`certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,375,957; 8,863,752; 9,364,027; 9,339,062;
`
`9,326,550; 9,326,551; and 9,456,632. The above-referenced action is one of four
`
`related patent infringement actions filed by the Patent Owner against the Petitioner.
`
`In the related action, Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`
`No. 1:16-cv-01255 (M.D.N.C.) (filed as 2:16-cv-02286 (C.D. Cal., filed April 4,
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`2016)), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,365,742; 8,490,628;
`
`
`
`8,893,726; and 8,899,239. In another related action, Fontem Ventures B.V. et al. v.
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:16-cv-01257 (M.D.N.C.) (filed as 2:16-cv-
`
`03049 (C.D. Cal., filed May 3, 2016)), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 9,326,548; and 9,326,549. In a third related action, Fontem Ventures B.V. et
`
`al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, No. 1:16-cv-01258 (M.D.N.C.) (filed as 2:16-
`
`cv-04534 (C.D. Cal., filed June 22, 2016)), the Patent Owner has asserted U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,370,205. In addition to the petitions for IPR noted below with respect
`
`to the 331 patent, the Petitioner has also filed petitions for IPR against the 742
`
`patent (IPR2016-01268 and IPR2016-01532), the 726 patent (IPR2016-01270,
`
`IPR2017-01117 and IPR2017-01180), the 239 patent (IPR2016-01272 and
`
`IPR2017-01120), the 628 patent (IPR 2016-01527, IPR2017-01118 and IPR2017-
`
`01119), the 548 patent (IPR2016-01691 and IPR2016-01692), the 549 patent
`
`(IPR2016-01859, IPR2017-01318 and IPR2017-01319), and the 205 patent
`
`(IPR2017-01641 and IPR2017-01642).
`
`In addition to the foregoing, the Petitioner is aware of the following
`
`additional matters involving or related to the 331 patent.
`
`Related Litigations
`1.
`The Patent Owner has asserted the 331 patent in the following terminated
`
`district court proceedings in which Reynolds was not and is not a party:
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case Name
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v.
`NJOY, Inc.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v.
`LOEC, Inc. et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. CB
`Distributors, Inc. et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Vapor
`Corp.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. FIN
`Branding Group, LLC et al.
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v.
`Ballantyne Brands, LLC
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Spark
`Industries, LLC
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Logic
`Technology Development LLC
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. VMR
`Products, LLC
`
`Case Number District
`2:14-cv-01645 C.D. Cal.
`
`Filed
`Mar. 5, 2014
`
`2:14-cv-01648 C.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 5, 2014
`
`2:14-cv-01649 C.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 5, 2014
`
`2:14-cv-01650 C.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 5, 2014
`
`2:14-cv-01651 C.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 5, 2014
`
`2:14-cv-01652 C.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 5, 2014
`
`2:14-cv-01653 C.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 5, 2014
`
`2:14-cv-01654 C.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 5, 2014
`
`2:14-cv-01655 C.D. Cal.
`
`Mar. 5, 2014
`
`Fontem Ventures BV et al. v. Nu
`Mark LLC
`
`1:16-cv-01261
`
`M.D.N.C.
`(filed as
`2:16-cv-
`02291 (C.D.
`Cal.))
`
`April 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Related Proceedings Before the Board
`2.
`The 331 patent was the subject of, or related to, the following petitions for
`
`IPR:
`
`Case Name
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Patent No. 8,393,331) (terminated)
`
`Filed
`Case Number
`IPR2014-01289 Aug. 14,
`2014
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Filed
`Case Number
`IPR2014-01300 Aug. 15,
`2014
`
`IPR2015-01302 May 29, 2015
`
`IPR2016-01283
`
`Jun. 28, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01285
`
`Jun. 28, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01288
`
`Jun. 28, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01297
`
`Jun. 28, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01299
`
`Jun. 28, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01270
`
`Jul. 2, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01438
`
`Jul. 14, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01527 Aug. 3, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01664 Aug. 22,
`2016
`IPR2016-01859 Sept. 23,
`2016
`
`IPR2017-01117 Apr. 4, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01118 Apr. 4, 2017
`
`
`
`Case Name
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,490,628) (terminated)
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,893,726) (denied)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,490,628) (denied)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,490,628) (denied)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,893,726) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,893,726) (terminated)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,393,331) (terminated)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726)
`(denied)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,393,331) (denied)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,490,628)
`(denied)
`Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,326,549) (terminated)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,549)
`(denied)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726)
`(denied)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,490,628)
`(denied)
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case Name
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,490,628)
`(denied)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,893,726)
`(denied)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,549)
`(denied)
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem
`Holdings 1 B.V. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,326,549)
`(denied)
`
`
`
`
`Filed
`Case Number
`IPR2017-01119 Apr. 4, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01180 Apr. 4, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01318 May 1, 2017
`
`IPR2017-01319 May 3, 2017
`
`Pending Patent Applications
`3.
`The following pending patent applications are related to the 331 patent:
`
`Serial No.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/525,066, which claim the
`benefit of the 331 patent filing date
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/633,434, which claims the
`benefit of the 331 patent filing date
`
`
`
`Filed
`October 27, 2014
`
`June 26, 2017
`
`Prior NJOY And Nu Mark Petitions
`
`In IPR2014-01289 listed above (“NJOY petition”), the Board instituted
`
`NJOY’s petition for inter partes review of the 331 patent. The instituted grounds
`
`in NJOY’s petition relied on Takeuchi under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 1-2, and
`
`further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,743,251 (“Howell,” Ex. 1004) or U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,598,607 (“Adiga,” Ex. 1005), under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 4-5. Ex. 1009 at
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`pp. 22-23. The proceeding was terminated on November 24, 2015, at the parties’
`
`
`
`request in view of an apparent settlement. Ex. 1010 at pp. 2-3.
`
`In IPR2016-01299, listed above (“Nu Mark obviousness-based petition”),
`
`the Board instituted Nu Mark’s petition for inter partes review of the 331 patent.
`
`The instituted grounds in Nu Mark’s petition also relied on Takeuchi under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 for claims 1-2, and further in view of Howell or Adiga, under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 for claims 4-5. Ex. 1011 at p. 20. The proceeding was terminated on
`
`January 5, 2017, at the parties’ request in view of an apparent settlement. Ex. 1012
`
`at pp. 2-3.
`
`In IPR2016-01438 listed above (“Nu Mark priority-based petition”), on
`
`December 29, 2016, the Board denied Nu Mark’s petition for inter partes review
`
`of the 331 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 grounds based on U.S. Patent Publication
`
`No. 2007/0267031. Ex. 1013 at pp. 2, 12.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`Lead Counsel
`Back-Up Counsel
`Robert S. Mallin
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Reg. No. 35,596
`Reg. No. 34,167
`rmallin@brinksgilson.com
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`
`Yuezhong Feng
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Reg. No. 58,657
`Suite 3600 NBC Tower
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`
`Chicago IL 60611-5599
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`Suite 3600 NBC Tower
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chicago IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200, F: 312-321-4299
`
`
`D.
`Service Information
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel at the
`
`contact information above. Petitioner also consents to service by email at
`
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com, rmallin@brinksgilson.com and
`
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the 331 patent
`
`is available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2 of the
`
`331 patent based upon 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103 as set forth herein. The 331
`
`patent is to be reviewed under pre-AIA §§ 102 and 103. Petitioner’s detailed
`
`statement of the reasons for relief requested is set forth below in the section titled
`
`“Statement of Reasons for the Relief Requested.” In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(c), copies of the exhibits are filed herewith. In addition, this Petition is
`
`accompanied by the declaration of Dr. Robert Sturges (Ex. 1002).
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Claims 1-2 are unpatentable based upon the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`
`anticipated by Takeuchi (Ex. 1003).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`
`
`
`over Takeuchi (Ex. 1003).
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,268 (“Takeuchi,” Ex. 1003), issued December 5, 2000,
`
`is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Statement of No Redundancy: This is the first and only petition being
`
`filed by Petitioner concerning the 331 patent.
`
`The grounds presented in this petition are not redundant of grounds
`
`previously decided by the Board. While Grounds 1-2 rely on the same prior art,
`
`i.e., Takeuchi, as Ground 1 in the NJOY petition in instituted IPR2014-01289 and
`
`Ground 1 in the Nu Mark petition in instituted IPR2016-01299, the Board did not
`
`issue a final written decision in those prior proceedings. Rather, after institution
`
`based on Takeuchi, the proceedings were terminated based on agreement of the
`
`parties. Ex. 1010 at pp. 2-3; Ex. 1012 at pp. 2-3. Thus, the Grounds presented here
`
`are particularly appropriate for review and not redundant. Further, even though PO
`
`previously addressed the prior art presented in this petition, any argument from PO
`
`about alleged prejudice or burden by being subjected to multiple petitions is
`
`unwarranted as PO elected to seek termination of those prior IPRs rather than to
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`continue them to resolution, and further, in view of PO’s litigation activity.
`
`Indeed, in addition to numerous lawsuits against others, PO has filed four lawsuits
`
`against petitioner alleging infringement of 15 patents, and this is Petitioner’s first
`
`and only petition concerning the 331 patent. Ex. 1039, Institution Decision dated
`
`Feb. 6, 2018 at p. 26 (Paper 8), Samsung Elec. Am. v. Uniloc, IPR2017-01801
`
`(P.T.A.B., petition filed July 20, 2017) (Patent Owner’s complaint about the
`
`multiple IPR petitions “is not persuasive when the volume appears to be a direct
`
`result of its own litigation activity.”).
`
`The invalidity grounds presented in this petition also are not redundant of
`
`grounds previously before the PTO. Takeuchi was not considered by the Examiner
`
`during prosecution; Takeuchi is not cited on the face of the 331 patent or its parent
`
`patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,832,410). Further, the Examiner did not have other
`
`evidence, such as Dr. Sturges’ expert declaration to consider. Under situations
`
`such as this, the Board has rejected arguments that institution should be denied
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See Ex. 1040, Institution Decision dated Feb. 5, 2018
`
`(Paper 9) at pp. 7-8, Cascades Canada ULC v. SCA Hygiene Prods AB, IPR2017-
`
`01921 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Aug. 7, 2017) (“While we are mindful of the
`
`burden on Patent Owner and the Office to rehear the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, we are persuaded []
`
`that Petitioner’s arguments and the art upon which they are based differ
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`sufficiently from what was presented during prosecution, and have merit.”); Ex.
`
`1041, Institution Decision dated Jan. 19, 2018 at pp. 9-12, 17-19 (Paper 9),
`
`Donghee America, Inc. v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and Research,
`
`IPR2017-01654 (P.T.A.B., petition filed June 21, 2017) (instituting IPR based on
`
`prior art that formed the basis for rejection during prosecution because there was
`
`no evidence the Examiner considered “the unnumbered element in [prior art]
`
`Figure 1,” the petitioner’s “distinct arguments,” and the evidence presented in the
`
`petition including the expert declaration); Ex. 1042, Institution Decision dated May
`
`18, 2017 at p. 7 (Paper 9), Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech.,
`
`IPR2017-00249 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Nov. 11, 2016) (“We are not persuaded
`
`… that a citation to prior art in an IDS, without substantive discussion of the
`
`reference by the Examiner, is sufficient reason to exercise our discretion under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d) to decline to institute an inter partes review”); Ex. 1043,
`
`Institution Decision dated July 15, 2015 at p. 15 (Paper 10), Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, IPR2015-00483 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Dec.
`
`23, 2014) (“while [the reference] was listed on a lengthy Information Disclosure
`
`Statement initialed by the Examiner, the reference was not applied against the
`
`claims and there is no evidence that the Examiner considered the particular
`
`disclosures cited … in the Petition.”); Ex. 1044, Institution Decision dated Mar. 13,
`
`2013 at pp. 7, 20 (Paper 19), Micron Tech., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill.,
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2013-00005 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Oct. 2, 2012) (instituting IPR based on
`
`prior art that “was before the Office during prosecution,” and reasoning that “[t]he
`
`present record differs from the one before the Examiner” in that the Board now
`
`“consider[s] the [reference] in view of the [Expert] declaration testimony [], which
`
`was not before the Examiner.”); see also Ex. 1045, Institution Decision dated Jan.
`
`24, 2013 at pp. 16-19 (Paper 18), Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GMBH & KG, IPR2012-
`
`00004 (P.T.A.B., petition filed Sept. 16, 2012) (explicitly rejecting examiner’s
`
`reasoning about prior art during prosecution).
`
`Accordingly, this Petition is not redundant, and instead is particularly
`
`appropriate for institution based on the two prior instituted IPR proceedings that
`
`were terminated based on settlement.
`
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This petition meets the threshold requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`because it establishes “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Background Information for the 331 Patent
`The 331 patent describes an electronic atomization cigarette. Ex. 1001, Fig.
`
`1. “A LED 1, a cell 2, an electronic circuit board 3, a normal pressure cavity 5, a
`
`sensor 6, a vapor-liquid separator 7, an atomizer 9, a liquid-supplying bottle 11 and
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`a mouthpiece 15 are sequentially provided within the shell 14.” Id. at 2:34-37.
`
`“[A]n air inlet 4 is provided on the external wall of the shell 14.” Id. at 2:33-34.
`
`Airflow passes from the air inlet 4 to an outlet in the mouthpiece 15, via the air
`
`passage 18, atomizer 9, aerosol passage 12, and gas vent 17. Id. at 3:15-17, 46-55.
`
`
`
`Cell
`
`Air Inlet
`
`Atomization
`Cavity
`
`Mouthpiece
`
`Electronic
`Circuit
`Board
`
`LED
`
`Sensor
`Atomizer
`
`Liquid-
`Supplying
`Bottle
`
`Shell
`
`
`
`With reference to the annotated figure below, the atomizer 9 includes a
`
`porous body 27, an atomization cavity 10 and a heating wire 26. The porous body
`
`has a bulge 36 in contact with the solution storage porous body 28 in liquid-
`
`supplying bottle 11. Id. at 2:45-54, 63-66; 3:61-64. Liquid spent as a result of
`
`atomization is replenished from the liquid-supplying bottle by “capillary
`
`infiltration” through bulge 36 of the porous body 27. Id. at 3:61-64.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Bulge
`
`
`
`Atomization
`Cavity
`
`Heating
`Element
`
`Porous Body
`
`
`
`In operation, when a user puffs on the device, air enters normal pressure
`
`cavity 5 through the air inlet 4, passes through the air passage 18 of the sensor and
`
`then the through hole of the vapor liquid separator 7. Air then flows into the
`
`atomization cavity 10 by passing through the porous body 27 and the ejection holes
`
`24. Id. at 3:46-49. The ejection holes create a high speed stream that nicotine
`
`solution from the porous body into the atomization chamber where the nicotine
`
`solution is atomized by the piezoelectric element and the heating element. Id. at
`
`3:49-55.
`
`B.
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“PHOSITA”)
`A PHOSITA for the 331 patent would have had at least the equivalent of a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or biomedical
`
`engineering or related fields, along with at least 5 years of experience designing
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`electromechanical devices, including those in