Paper 9
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 4, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC,
`and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 4, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC,
`and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and Whatsapp Inc. (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5,
`7–11, 13–15, 17, 19–22, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’120 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). BlackBerry Limited (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Having considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence of record, we conclude there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claim 1 of the
`’120 patent and, therefore, institute inter partes review.
`
`A.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The parties identify BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-
`01844-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), as a related matter. See Pet. 2; Patent Owner
`Mandatory Notices (Paper 5) 2. The District Court entered a claim
`construction ruling in that case on April 11, 2019, a copy of which has been
`filed as Exhibit 1020. Petitioner also identifies BlackBerry Ltd. v. Twitter,
`Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS (CD Cal.), as a related matter. See
`Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory Notice (Paper 6) 2.
`
`B.
`
`The ’120 Patent
`
`The ’120 patent is directed to “[m]ethods, systems, and computer
`programming products . . . for silencing message threads.” Ex. 1001, [57].
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`The general scheme is illustrated in Figure 6 of the patent, which is
`reproduced in part below.
`
`
`
`Figure 6 is a “schematic flow diagram of an
`example method for receiving a message.” Ex. 1001, 2:1–2.
`The method “can begin at 602 where a message is received which is
`addressed or otherwise identified in such a way as to be associated with an
`inbox.” Ex. 1001, 14:5–7. “At 604, it may be determined whether or not the
`message relates to a new matter, such as a new topic of conversation or a
`new activity.” Id. at 14:19–21. “If the message does relate to a new matter,
`at 606, a new message thread is started” and, “[a]t 608, the user is notified of
`the message according to any currently-enabled notification settings.” Id. at
`14:32–35.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`“If the message does not relate to a new matter, at 610, a thread to
`which the message belongs may be determined” and, “[a]t 612, it [may be]
`determined whether or not the message thread to which the message belongs
`has been silenced by the user.” Ex. 1001, 14:36–37, 14:44–46. If the thread
`has been silenced, “no notification may be activated and at 614 the message
`may appear ‘greyed out’ or other diminished fashion when displayed with
`the inbox contents.” Id. at 14:49–52. If, on the other hand, the thread has
`not been silenced, “then at 616 the user may be notified of the incoming
`message according to any currently-enabled notification settings.” Id. at
`14:52–55.
`The ’120 patent explains that the “[n]otifications could include, for
`example, auditory user alerts such as ring tones, visual alerts such as
`flashing lights or pop-ups and physical alerts such as vibrations.” Ex. 1001,
`1:30–32; see also id. at 9:6–8 (stating the same). The patent also explains
`that “[m]essage threads which have been silenced may be marked or flagged
`as silenced in memory 300 by, for example, setting a flag or other indicator
`in a data record associated with the message thread.” Ex. 1001, 9:35–38.
`
`C.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`Independent claim 1 is to a system for silencing notifications,
`independent claim 13 is to a corresponding method, and independent claim
`24 is a corresponding Beauregard claim. Claim 1 is thus indicative of the
`subject matter addressed in this proceeding:
`1. A communication system configured to silence notifications for
`incoming electronic messages, the system comprising a data
`processor, non-transitory media readable by the data processor and a
`communications subsystem:
`the communication subsystem adapted for receiving the incoming
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`electronic messages; and
`the non-transitory media readable by the data processor comprising
`coded program instructions adapted to cause the processor to:
`receive a selected message thread for silencing;
`in response to receiving the selected message thread, activate a flag
`stored in the non-transitory media in association with the
`selected message thread, wherein the flag indicates that the
`selected message thread has been silenced;
`determine that a new incoming electronic message is associated
`with the selected message thread;
`determine that the selected message thread has been flagged as
`silenced using the flag stored in the nontransitory media;
`override a currently-enabled notification setting to prevent a
`receipt notification pertaining to new incoming electronic
`messages associated with the selected message thread from
`being activated; and
`display the new incoming electronic message in an inbox together
`with any message thread not flagged as silenced, while
`silencing any further notifications pertaining to receipt of the
`new incoming electronic message, wherein the new incoming
`message thread flagged as silenced is displayed in the inbox in
`a different manner than any message thread not flagged as
`silenced.
`Ex. 1001, 16:46–17:10.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 19–22, and 24
`are unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Dallas,1 Brown,2 and Kent3
`
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, and Bott4
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, and Mann5
`
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, and LeBlanc6
`
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, LeBlanc, and Bott
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, LeBlanc, and Mann
`
`Claim(s)
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13–
`15, 17, 19–21, and 24
`§ 103(a) 9
`§ 103(a) 11 and 22
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13–
`15, 17, 19–21, and 24
`§ 103(a) 9
`§ 103(a) 11 and 22
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D,
`filed as Exhibit 1002.
`
`
`1 Alastair Dallas, Using Collabra Share 2 (Que Corporation 1995) (excerpts
`filed as Ex. 1003).
`2 Mark R. Brown, Using Netscape Communicator 4 (Que Corporation 1997)
`(excerpts filed as Ex. 1004).
`3 Jeff Kent, C++ Demystified: A Self-Teaching Guide (McGraw-
`Hill/Osborne 2004) (excerpts filed as Ex. 1010).
`4 Ed Bott, Using Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Que Corporation
`2001) (excerpts filed as Exhibit 1007).
`5 Bill Mann, How to Do Everything with Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 (The
`McGraw-Hill Companies 2007) (excerpts filed as Exhibit 1011).
`6 Dee-Ann LeBlanc, Using Eudora (Que Corporation 2d ed. 1997) (excerpts
`filed as Exhibit 1005).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art
`
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. See Al-Site
`Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham
`v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). The level of skill in the art
`also informs the claim construction analysis. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v.
`Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (explaining that claim construction
`seeks the meaning “a skilled artisan would ascribe” to the claim term “in the
`context of the specific patent claim”).
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in software engineering, computer
`science, or computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two
`years of experience in software application development, including
`development of applications for messaging (or equivalent
`degree/experience).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 (Chatterjee) ¶¶ 12–15). Patent
`Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response.
`As the Preliminary Response does not dispute Petitioner’s
`characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because it is consistent
`with the ’120 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt it for purposes of
`this analysis.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`In inter partes review proceedings based on petitions filed on or after
`November 13, 2018, such as this one, we construe claims using the same
`claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`U.S.C. § 282(b), as articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Petitioner asserts that “[t]he parties to the pending litigation have
`identified competing constructions for two claim terms[,] ‘flag’ and
`‘notification,’” and that “[a]lthough these claim terms are relevant to issues
`in the pending litigation, an express construction is not required at this time
`for purposes of evaluating the prior art in this IPR proceeding.” Pet. 7.
`Petitioner states that “the prior art discloses these limitations under all
`constructions proposed in the pending litigation.” Id. at 8.
`According to Petitioner, “Patent Owner argues that ‘flag’ means a
`‘mark or code indicating a status or condition,’ while Petition[er] argues that
`a ‘flag’ is a ‘status indicator,’” but “there is no material difference for
`purposes of this IPR petition.” Pet 8. Patent Owner states that “there is no
`material difference between the [parties’] previously proposed
`interpretations for purposes of this IPR petition” and, “[a]ccordingly, the
`Board need not construe ‘flag’ at this time.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Given the
`parties’ positions, we will not construe “flag” in this decision.
`Petitioner argues that “‘notification’ should be given its plain and
`ordinary meaning of ‘an indication providing notice that an event has
`occurred.’” Pet. 8. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he term ‘notification’
`should be interpreted consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning, as
`‘some form of visual, auditory, or physical cue to draw attention to an
`incoming message that would not otherwise have been noticed, at the time of
`the incoming message,’. . . [which is] exactly how the district court
`interpreted this phrase in parallel litigation.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing
`Ex. 1020 (the District Court claim construction ruling) at 31).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`For purposes of this decision, we adopt the District Court’s
`construction of “notification”: “some form of visual, auditory, or physical
`cue to draw attention to an incoming message that would not otherwise have
`been noticed, at the time of the incoming message.” As discussed below,
`however, we do not find that it distinguishes the challenged claims over
`Dallas. The parties, however, may wish to brief further how one might
`evaluate the “that would not otherwise have been noticed” portion of the
`construction with regard to what a user might or might not be doing for the
`user to not otherwise have noticed the message.
`
`C.
`
`Reasonable Likelihood Analysis
`
`Petitioner alleges that claims 1–3, 5, 7–8, 10, 13–15, 17, 19–21, and
`24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Dallas, Brown, and
`Kent. See Pet. 21–57. In the ground addressing claim 9, Petitioner adds
`Bott to the combination of Dallas, Brown, and Kent. See Pet. 58–60. In the
`ground addressing claims 11 and 22, Petitioner adds Mann to the
`combination of Dallas, Brown, and Kent. See Pet. 61–65. The three
`remaining grounds mirror the grounds identified above, with the addition of
`LeBlanc. See Pet. 65–70.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`Dallas
`1.
`Dallas is a user guide for an application called Collabra Share 2.
`Ex. 1003, 28.7 Figure 1.9 of the reference is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1.9 is a screenshot of
`a Collabra Share 2 window.
`The Collabra Share 2 window shown in Figure 1.9 includes a box
`with categories on the top left, a box with hierarchically arranged items from
`the selected category on the top right, and box with the contents of the
`current item at the bottom. The items may include messages. See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1003, 53, 192–193.
`
`
`7 The parties refer to non-patent literature exhibits using the original page
`numbers of the documents, not the page numbers of the exhibit inserted by
`Petitioner. To avoid confusion and facilitate quick navigation within
`exhibits, we request that both parties use the page numbers inserted by
`Petitioner, not the original page numbering of the document, in future
`filings.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`Dallas explains that red flags applied to the category and thread icons
`“lead [the user] directly to [a] new document, which has a sparkle on its icon
`and has a different color title to indicate that [the user has not] read it yet.”
`Ex. 1003, 55. Dallas also explains that Collabra Share 2 allowed a user to
`select the color of the font used for new items. See id. at 194 (“To change
`the color of unread documents, click the Browse Colors button on the
`Miscellaneous tab of the Properties, General dialog box.”).
`Dallas further describes a Collabra Share 2 option called “Ignore,”
`that would allow a user “[t]o stop seeing new documents in a particular
`thread or category.” Ex. 1003, 195. According to Dallas, “[t]hreads (but not
`categories) are automatically collapsed when you ignore them,” but “[y]ou
`can expand them again, if you like.” Id. If the user were to expand the
`collapsed ignored thread, they “[would] still see the documents [they]
`ignored, but no documents in ignored threads or categories [would] appear
`new.” Id. In other words, new documents or messages in ignored threads
`would not have the user selected color font or the sparkle.
`
`Kent
`2.
`Kent a self-teaching guide to the programming language C++. It
`describes the use of Boolean variables a flags. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 131.
`
`Brown
`3.
`Brown is a user guide for Netscape Communicator 4 that includes a
`description of a related email application called Messenger. See Ex. 1004,
`34–36. Brown describes how Messenger included an ignore thread option
`similar to that of Collabra Share 2, and states that “messages in [the ignored]
`thread continue to be downloaded and sorted.” Id. at 50.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`LeBlanc
`4.
`LeBlanc is a user guide for an email application called Eudora. See
`Ex. 1005, 20. In pertinent part, it describes how Eudora included a dialog
`box that allowed the user to select the method(s) by which they would be
`notified of new email, the options including alerts, flashing icons, and
`sounds. See Ex. 1005, 24–25.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner’s Application of Claim 1
`to Dallas, Brown, and Kent
`We refer to pages 21–65 of the Petition for the details of the ground
`based on the combination of Dallas, Brown, and Kent. Because Patent
`Owner argues just the independent claims, and argues them together, we
`summarize only Petitioner’s analysis for claim 1 here.
`Petitioner argues that Dallas describes how Collabra Share 2 received
`and silenced notifications for incoming electronic messages, as in the
`preamble of claim 1. See Pet. 21–25. Petitioner argues that Collabra Share
`2 received a selected message thread for silencing and silenced the thread
`using the “Ignore” option. See id. at 26–28. Petitioner further argues that
`Collabra Share 2 determined that a new incoming electronic message was
`associated with a selected message thread, determined that the selected
`message thread had been silenced if it was an “Ignored” thread, and
`overrode a notification setting to prevent a receipt notification pertaining to
`the new incoming message from being activated. See id. at 34–43. The
`notification was prevented in that the message subject was shown in a black
`font instead of a user selected color that would otherwise have been used for
`new messages, and without the “sparkle” that would otherwise have been
`shown for a new message. See id. According to Petitioner, Collabra Share 2
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`also displayed the new message in an inbox together with messages not
`flagged as silenced, while silencing any further notifications pertaining to
`receipt of the new incoming electronic message. See id. at 45–50. Petitioner
`additionally argues that the message thread flagged as silenced was
`displayed in the inbox in a different manner than message threads not
`flagged as silenced because it includes the “not” icon. See id. at 50–52.
`Petitioner acknowledges that Dallas “does not specifically use the
`word ‘flag’ to describe how the Collabra [Share 2] software keeps track of
`which threads have been ‘ignored,’” but that use of a flag would have been
`“a trivial implementation detail that would have been apparent and obvious
`based on the disclosures of Dallas” and also would have been obvious in
`view of Kent, which describes the use of flags in C++. See Petition 31–32.
`Petitioner additionally cites Brown, “to account for a potential
`argument Patent Owner may make,” asserting that Brown discloses
`“continuing to receive messages for an ignored thread.” See Pet. 35–36.
`Petitioner argues that “[c]ontinuing to receive new messages in the ignored
`thread would have helped when the user was ‘ready to start dealing with [the
`thread] again.’” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002 (Chatterjee) ¶ 104).
`
`6.
`
`Petitioner’s Application of Claim 1 to
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, and LeBlanc
`The ground based on the combination of Dallas, Brown, Kent, and
`LeBlanc is essentially identical to ground based on the combination of
`Dallas, Brown, and Kent, except for the addition of LeBlanc “as further
`support for ‘notification’ limitations of the challenged claims.” Pet. 65–66.
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that the combination including LeBlanc
`would have resulted in a system “in which, in addition to the visual new
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`message notifications that Collabra [Share 2] already has (e.g. red flags,
`sparkles, text color), the software would further support additional, user-
`specified notifications, such as playing a sound, popping up a dialog box, or
`flashing an icon in the program menu bar, as disclosed in LeBlanc.” Pet. 68
`(citing Ex. 1005, 24–25). According to Petitioner, this proposed
`combination “would have further resulted in greater user control over the
`notifications, as the user would be able to select which notifications to
`provide through the user interface.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 172).
`
`7.
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Regarding the Dallas,
`Brown, and Kent Grounds
`Relying on the District Court’s construction of “notification,” which
`we adopt for purposes of this decision, Patent Owner argues that Collabra
`Share 2’s “use of different marking for unread messages does not ‘draw
`attention to an incoming message . . . at the time of the incoming message,’
`and is therefore distinguishable from the claimed notification,” as recited in
`the independent claims. Prelim. Resp. 26. Patent Owner further argues that
`Collabra Share 2’s “notification is not a ‘receipt notification’ nor does it
`‘pertain[] to new incoming electronic messages’” because Collabra Share 2
`“indefinitely displays messages as unread, unless and until they are read or
`their status otherwise changes.” Id. at 27.
`On this record, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s analysis. The
`purpose of Collabra Share 2’s colored font and sparkle is “to help [the user]
`zoom in on ‘what’s new’ in [the] forum,” i.e., to draw attention to new
`incoming messages. Ex. 1003, 55. The coloring and sparkle also would be
`displayed “at the time” the incoming message is delivered, at least when the
`mailbox is open and viewable. Further, on this record, we preliminarily find
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`that Collabra Share 2’s notification is a “receipt notification,” because it
`informs the user that a new message has been received. And we are
`unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Collabra Share 2 “indefinitely
`displays messages as unread” because we see nothing in the claim or the
`construction of “notification” requiring that the notification be fleeting.
`Patent Owner also argues that Collabra Share 2’s “Ignore command
`simply marks all incoming messages as read without changing the operation
`of any setting, much less by ‘overrid[ing] a currently-enabled notification
`setting,’ as required by all Challenged Claims.” Prelim. Resp. 28.
`According to Patent Owner, “the Ignore command’s visual effect—that ‘no
`documents in ignored threads or categories will appear new’—is the result of
`[Collabra Share 2] displaying these documents in a manner that reflects their
`read status, not the result of overriding any setting.” Id.
`We again are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. On this
`record, we agree with Petitioner that the Ignore command, when it is used to
`prevent a new message from having the font and sparkle attributes that
`would otherwise be associated with a new message, is “overriding” the
`default setting for new messages. The visual effect imposed by the Ignore
`option is not a result of “displaying these documents in a manner that
`reflects their read status”; instead, it is applied to all messages that are
`ignored, regardless of whether they have been read or not. Patent Owner
`does not argue for a construction of “setting” that would distinguish the
`challenged claims from what is described in Dallas.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`8.
`
`Patent Owner Arguments Regarding the Dallas,
`Brown, Kent, and LeBlanc Grounds
`Patent Owner contends that (1) “Petitioners fail to identify any reason
`or evidence that Dallas’ marking of incoming messages as ‘read’ would have
`had any effect on LeBlanc’s ‘new mail’ notifications,” (2) “[m]odifying
`Dallas’ Ignore command to prevent LeBlanc’s notifications, instead of
`marking incoming messages as ‘read,’ would have fundamentally altered
`how Dallas’ Ignore command was implemented,” which “would have
`required redesigning the Ignore command from the ground up,” and
`(3) “[m]odifying Dallas’s Ignore command to ‘override’ LeBlanc’s alleged
`notification settings also would have rendered the Ignore command unfit for
`its intended purposes.” Prelim. Resp. 35–37.
`On this record, we are not persuaded. The Dallas and LeBlanc
`references describe different methods for alerting a user of a new message,
`and we conclude, on this record at least, that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have found it obvious to use any of the prior art message notification
`methods. We also agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art,
`in view of Dallas’s teaching of ignoring notifications, would have found it
`obvious to also ignore the different types of notifications, including those of
`LeBlanc. Patent Owner has not shown that the alteration “would have
`required redesigning the Ignore command from the ground up,” because it
`would just be a matter of blocking a different type of notification, or that it
`“would have rendered the Ignore command unfit for its intended purposes,”
`because it still would serve the purpose of allowing the user to control
`whether they get a notification for a given thread.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`Conclusion on Reasonable Likelihood
`9.
`Because we agree with Petitioner’s analysis summarized above, and
`we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, we conclude that
`Petitioner has, on the present record, established a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in showing that the independent claims would have been obvious
`in view of Dallas, Brown, and Kent and/or Dallas, Brown, Kent, and
`LeBlanc.
`Because the Preliminary Response does not address any of dependent
`claims 2, 3, 5, 7–8, 10, 13–15, 17, 19–21, and 24 separately, and because we
`are in any event required to go forward on all grounds and all claims if we
`go forward on any,8 we institute a review as to all grounds and all claims.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’120 patent, we
`institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`8 See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1353 (2018) (“The agency
`cannot curate the claims at issue but must decide them all.”); see also Trial
`Practice Guide Update 31 (July 2019) (“The Board will not institute on
`fewer than all claims or all challenges in a petition.”), available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial-practice-
`guideupdate3.pdf.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is instituted as to claims 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 19–22, and 24 of
`the ’120 patent, on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References
`
`Dallas, Brown, and Kent
`
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, and Bott
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, and Mann
`
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, and LeBlanc
`
`Claim(s)
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 5, 7–8, 10, 13–
`15, 17, 19–21, and 24
`§ 103(a) 9
`§ 103(a) 11 and 22
`§ 103(a) 1–3, 5, 7–8, 10, 13–
`15, 17, 19–21, and 24
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, LeBlanc, and Bott § 103(a) 9
`Dallas, Brown, Kent, LeBlanc, and
`Mann
`
`§ 103(a) 11 and 22
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is given of the institution of a trial, which
`commences on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00706
`Patent 9,349,120 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Andrew C. Mace
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`amace@cooley.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`James M. Glass
`Ognjen Zivojnovic
`Sam Stake
`Alex Wolinsky
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`ogizivojnovic@quinnemanuel.com
`samstake@quinnemanuel.com
`alexwolinsky@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
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
