`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2019-00942
`Patent 8,677,250
`
`PETITIONER’S PRELIMINARY REPLY1
`
`
`
`1 This Reply was authorized by the Board’s email dated September 17, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board decline to exercise its discretion
`
`to deny institution under § 325(d) or § 314.
`
`§ 325(d): Patent Owner asserts that Galli (Ex. 1003) is similar to Kirmse
`
`(cited during prosecution) because both allegedly “discuss displaying a selectable
`
`object in the user interface of an instant message application, which upon selection
`
`launches another application.” (POPR at 23-24.) But conclusory assertions of
`
`“similarities” do not trigger § 325(d). See Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Veveo,
`
`Inc., Case IPR2019-00239, Paper 15 at 11 (PTAB July 5, 2019) (“[I]it is axiomatic
`
`that references used to examine the patentability of and the references presented in
`
`a Petition challenging the same patent will have some similarities.”).
`
`Patent Owner’s § 325(d) arguments highlight a key difference between Galli
`
`and Kirmse. During prosecution, the applicants amended the claims to further recite
`
`“detecting a selection in the instant messaging conversation user interface to switch
`
`to the game in progress.” (Ex. 1010 at 008 (emphasis added).) Applicants explained
`
`that by “enabling selections within the conversation user interface to initiate the
`
`game in progress user interface, game play can be identified both from a contact list
`
`view and within a conversation, and navigation between messaging and game play
`
`is further facilitated.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
`
`But the prior art considered during prosecution did not disclose selection from
`
`within the instant messaging conversation user interface. This is confirmed by the
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`following figure – directly from Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response – which
`
`shows the selectable object in Kirmse accessible only from a contact list view,
`
`whereas Galli discloses selections from the conversation user interface:
`
`
`
`(POPR at 24.) Patent Owner’s own figure above shows how Galli provides a key
`
`disclosure missing from the prior art before the Examiner.
`
`§ 314: Patent Owner has not cited or discussed the General Plastic factors or
`
`shown that they favor denial under § 314(a). Petitioner is aware of no prior petitions,
`
`by anyone, challenging the ’250 patent. The Petition challenges claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9,
`
`and 12-14, while only claims 9 and 14 remain asserted in the litigation. (Ex. 1011
`
`at 003.) “[D]iffering claim sets is a factor that weighs against exercise of …
`
`discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution based on [parallel litigation].” 3Shape
`
`A/S v. Align Tech., Case IPR2019-00160, Paper 9 at 39 (PTAB June 11, 2019).
`
`Moreover, the Board in NHK found it significant that the IPR petition relied
`
`on the same prior art and arguments as the district court. NHK Spring v. Intri-Plex
`
`Techs., Case IPR2018-0072, Paper 8 at 19-20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018). But here, the
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`references are not the same. (Ex. 1012 at 003-004.) The key reference cited in the
`
`IPR—Galli (Ex. 1003)—is not relied upon in the litigation to show invalidity.
`
`In addition, the NHK petitioner did not disclose any intention to seek a stay of
`
`the court proceeding. Petitioner here intends to renew its request for a stay,
`
`particularly considering that three IPR petitions challenging other patents asserted
`
`against Petitioner were recently instituted. See IPR2019-00528 (Paper 8), IPR2019-
`
`00516 (Paper 7), IPR2019-00706 (Paper 9).2 Thus, the trial date in the district court
`
`is not set in stone. But even if the trial date does not change, institution would be
`
`warranted. See RTI Surgical, Inc. v. LifeNet Health, Case IPR2019-00571, Paper 20
`
`at 2-3, 8 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2019) (instituting IPR after court litigation and Federal
`
`Circuit affirmance because Patent Office and courts had not considered cited prior
`
`art).
`
`
`2 On the issue of a stay, Patent Owner in other IPR proceedings involving Petitioner
`
`has cited the district court’s ruling in an unrelated case, Cal-Tech v. Broadcom Ltd.
`
`et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-3714 (C.D. Cal.), denying a renewed motion to stay. But
`
`the district court’s ruling in Cal-Tech has no bearing on how it would likely rule
`
`here. The court placed particular importance on the fact that there were asserted
`
`claims from all patents in that case that were not the subject of any PTAB
`
`proceedings. (Ex. 1013 at 003.) That will not be the case here as noted in the text.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 20, 2019
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Heidi L. Keefe /
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that a complete copy of the
`attached PETITIONER’S PRELIMINARY REPLY, including all exhibits (Nos.
`1010-1013) and related documents, are being served via electronic mail on the 20th
`day of September, 2019, upon counsel of record for the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`
` / Heidi L. Keefe /
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`COOLEY LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
`Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`
`James M. Glass
`Sam Stake
`Ogi Zivojnovic
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`
`SULLIVAN LLP
`qe-blackberry-ipr@quinnemanuel.com
`
`DATED: September 20, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`