throbber
DOCKET NOS.: 1543925-00158US1, 1543925-00158US3, 1543925-00158US4,
`1543925-00158US5
`Filed on behalf of Precision Planting, LLC and AGCO Corp.
`By: Grant K. Rowan, Reg. No. 41,278
`Mary V. Sooter, Reg. No. 71,022
`Michael J. Summersgill (admission pro hac vice to be requested)
`Mark G. Matuschak (admission pro hac vice to be requested)
`Jordan L. Hirsch (admission pro hac vice to be requested)
`R. Gregory Israelsen, Reg. No. 72,805
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email:
`Grant.Rowan@wilmerhale.com
`Mindy.Sooter@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`PRECISION PLANTING, LLC and AGCO CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DEERE & COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, IPR2019-01046, IPR2019-01047, and IPR2019-01048
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,813,663, 9,480,199, 9,510,502, and 9,686,906
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSES
`
`

`

`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, -01048
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL PRECLUDING PETITIONERS’
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE ARGUMENTS. .........................................2
`THE PETITIONS DEMONSTRATE A MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`THE ASSERTED REFERENCES.................................................................6
`THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BOARD TO EXERCISE ITS
`DISCRETION TO DENY INSTITUTION. ..................................................7
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, -01048
`Patent Owner (“Deere”) filed four Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`
`(“POPRs”) in IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, and -01048 arguing that the Board
`
`should deny institution. None of Deere’s arguments has merit.1
`
`With much fanfare, Deere claims Petitioners have taken a “diametrically
`
`opposite” position about the Koning reference to one taken over 15 years ago in
`
`the prosecution of the Sauder patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,681,706). ’663 POPR, 2.2
`
`In so doing, Deere improperly assumes that the state of precision-planting art lay
`
`fallow for six years. Deere then compounds its error by misapplying the law and
`
`mischaracterizing the Sauder prosecution history.
`
`Deere’s attorney argument that a POSITA would not have been motivated to
`
`combine the references’ teachings fares no better. Deere claims embodiments of
`
`the references must physically fit together like puzzle pieces. Id., 20 (“Koning’s
`
`brush hairs are unlikely to fit….”); 12 (Hedderwick’s “much smaller seeds”); 20
`
`(Koning’s brush hairs “are likely to be too stiff and too coarse”). But the relevant
`
`inquiry is whether a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of the references, not their physical parts. Allied Erecting &
`
`1 This consolidated Reply addresses the arguments in all four POPRs. The Board
`
`authorized filing this Reply via email on September 13, 2019.
`
`2 Except as noted, Deere’s arguments for the ’663 patent are representative.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, -01048
`Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Finally, Deere claims that the existence of pending district court litigation
`
`involving the same patents justifies the Board’s exercise of discretion to deny
`
`institution. Declining to institute on this flimsy showing would lead to declining to
`
`institute in almost every case, and should be rejected.
`
`I.
`
`THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL PRECLUDING PETITIONERS’
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE ARGUMENTS.
`Judicial estoppel is rarely appropriate and may not be found unless all three
`
`of the following have been established: (1) the party’s later position must be
`
`“clearly inconsistent” with its earlier one; (2) the party must have succeeded in
`
`persuading a court to adopt its earlier position; and (3) “the party seeking to assert
`
`an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair
`
`detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532
`
`U.S. 742, 749-51 (2001). Deere has failed to show these factors here.
`
`First, Petitioners’ evidence demonstrating a motivation to combine Koning
`
`with Hedderwick or Sauder is not “clearly inconsistent” with Precision’s
`
`statements during the Sauder prosecution. Those statements were made in 2003,
`
`six years before the priority date of Deere’s patents. Deere does not argue, nor
`
`could it, that the state of the art in precision planting remained unchanged from
`
`2003 to 2009. This omission is critical, as the statements that Deere claims are
`
`inconsistent refer to the state of the art at two different times.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, -01048
`The evidentiary record before the Board shows that, by 2009, a POSITA
`
`would have known of techniques for planting “seed crops”—i.e., crops, such as
`
`corn kernels, that are planted as seeds—and would have recognized that features of
`
`those techniques could be applied to other planters. See ’663 Ex. 1002, ¶63
`
`(“‘Seed crop’ is grown from seed and then itself used as seed. For example, corn
`
`seed can be used to grow corn and a kernel of corn can in turn be used to grow
`
`new corn. A [POSITA] would have known … systems used to plant seed crop can
`
`be used to plant seed…. It is also common for farmers to plant both potatoes and
`
`other types of seed, such as corn or soybeans. As a result, a [POSITA] … would
`
`understand that the teachings of Koning’s system could be applied to systems used
`
`to plant many different types of seeds.”); ’199 Ex. 1002, ¶68 (similar); ’502 Ex.
`
`1002, ¶67 (similar); ’906 Ex. 1002, ¶53 (similar). These facts, established by
`
`sworn expert declaration, are entitled to more weight than Deere’s mere attorney
`
`argument. See Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (“affidavits or declarations are held to a higher standard” than “mere
`
`attorney argument”). Deere itself considered Koning relevant enough to the
`
`subject matter of the ’663, ’199, and ’906 patents to submit it in an IDS during
`
`prosecution. ’663 Ex. 1022, 47; ’199 Ex. 1022, 87; ’906 Ex. 1022, 49.
`
`Moreover, Precision’s arguments during the Sauder prosecution focused on
`
`whether there was a “suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the prior art
`
`3
`
`

`

`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, -01048
`references.” ’663 Ex. 2001 at 315-318. The Supreme Court changed the standard
`
`for combining prior art when it decided KSR four years later. 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
`
`After this change in law, prior art that previously could not have been combined
`
`for proving obviousness now could be. See Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S.
`
`591, 601 (1948) (collateral estoppel does not apply where pertinent statutory
`
`provisions or regulations have changed between the first and second proceeding).
`
`Second, Deere mischaracterizes the Sauder prosecution when stating that
`
`“the examiner … withdrew the rejection, and passed the Sauder application to
`
`issue” in response to Precision’s lack of motivation to combine argument. ’663
`
`POPR, 3. Deere omits that Precision amended the claims “to define differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the art of record.” ’663 Ex. 2001, 209-210,
`
`299; id. at 289 (forwarding proposed amendments, stating: “enclosed proposed
`
`claims … are believed to overcome the Office’s stated rejections ….”). The
`
`Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance for the amended claims, without providing
`
`any reasons for allowance. Id. at 322-324. Contrary to Deere’s arguments, the
`
`record suggests that the Examiner allowed the claims because they had been
`
`amended. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 523 F.3d 1304,
`
`1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Because the record does not link [Defendant]’s success …
`
`to its [allegedly inconsistent] argument … judicial estoppel does not apply.”); see
`
`also Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 33 (1997)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, -01048
`(“[T]he court should presume that the patent applicant had a substantial reason
`
`related to patentability for including the limiting element added by amendment.”).
`
`Third, Deere has demonstrated neither “unfair advantage” to Precision nor
`
`“unfair detriment” to Deere. Precision has not asserted the Sauder patent against
`
`Deere. See Scarano v. Cent. R. Co. of N. J., 203 F.2d 510, 513 (3d Cir. 1953)
`
`(judicial estoppel focuses on “inconsistent statements” that are “against the same
`
`adversary”). Instead, it is Deere that seeks unfair advantage. Petitioners rely on
`
`Hedderwick’s or Sauder’s belt for delivering seeds, combined with Koning’s brush
`
`belt to meet the “endless member” claim limitation. Here, Deere argues Petitioners
`
`cannot show (because of purported estoppel) motivation to include the Koning
`
`brush belt. But in district court, Deere takes the opposite position, arguing for a
`
`construction of “endless member” that would not require a brush belt and instead
`
`would include any continuous belt forming a loop (including the belts disclosed in
`
`Hedderwick and Sauder). Ex. 1035, 7. Cf. Honeywell Int’l, 523 F.3d at 1315 (“If
`
`any party was estopped, it was [Patent Owner, which] apparently established
`
`infringement using a broader definition of the equivalent than it now urges….”).
`
`Finally, there is no justification for applying estoppel to AGCO, a separate
`
`petitioner not involved in the Sauder prosecution. AGCO did not acquire Precision
`
`until 13 years after the Sauder patent issued. None of the cases cited by Deere
`
`apply judicial estoppel to a subsequent acquirer. “Ordinarily, the party against
`
`5
`
`

`

`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, -01048
`whom judicial estoppel is invoked must be the same party who made the prior
`
`(inconsistent) representation.” Perry v. Blum, 629 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2010).
`
`II.
`
`THE PETITIONS DEMONSTRATE A MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`THE ASSERTED REFERENCES.
`Deere is incorrect that there is no motivation to combine because Koning’s
`
`brush hairs “are likely to be too stiff and too coarse” or “unlikely to fit” in the
`
`Hedderwick or Sauder systems. ’663 POPR, 20. The relevant inquiry is whether a
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references—
`
`not whether the specific embodiments of the references may be physically
`
`combined. Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381; see ’663 Petition, 31-39; ’663 Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶65-81; ’199 Petition, 36-45; ’199 Ex. 1002, ¶¶70-83; ’502 Petition, 30-
`
`36; ’502 Ex. 1002, ¶¶71-87; ’906 Petition, 27-33; ’906 Ex. 1002, ¶¶57-67. Deere
`
`has not submitted an expert declaration and has failed to provide competent
`
`evidence to rebut that a POSITA would have been motivated to make these
`
`combinations. See Unified Patents Inc. v. Speakware, Inc., No. IPR2019-00495,
`
`Paper 9, 21-22 (PTAB July 1, 2019) (granting institution because “Patent Owner
`
`only provides attorney argument, which is insufficient to rebut Petitioner’s
`
`evidence that a [POSITA] would have had a reasonable expectation of success”);
`
`Assoc. British Foods Plc v. Cornell Research Found., Inc., No. IPR2019-00582,
`
`Paper 24, 35 (PTAB July 25, 2019) (“Patent Owner’s arguments … rest[] on
`
`attorney argument” and “are unpersuasive against the evidence.”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, -01048
`III. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BOARD TO EXERCISE
`ITS DISCRETION TO DENY INSTITUTION.
`With almost every IPR, there is already litigation pending involving the
`
`challenged patent; that is not a legitimate basis to deny institution. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b) specifically contemplates a Petition filed with co-pending litigation by
`
`allowing filing one year after service of the complaint. In Samsung Elecs. Co. v.
`
`Immersion Corp., the Board granted institution even though “a trial date for the co-
`
`pending district court case is presently set to begin approximately 10 months
`
`before [the Board] would render a Final Written Decision.” No. IPR2018-01499,
`
`Paper 11, 13 (PTAB March 6, 2018). The Board in Samsung also distinguished the
`
`primary cases Deere relies on—NHK and Mylan—for reasons equally applicable
`
`here. Id. at 18-19. Samsung explained NHK “was decided chiefly on § 325(d) …
`
`and the arguments that the Petitioner advanced were substantially similar to the
`
`findings the Examiner made to reject the claims.” Samsung, Paper 11, 18. Here,
`
`none of the arguments in the Petitions were made in prosecution. In Samsung, the
`
`Board also expressly rejected Deere’s interpretation of Mylan that an IPR should
`
`not be instituted because the district court will hold a trial on the same validity
`
`arguments before the completion date for the IPR. Id. at 19. E-One, Inc. v.
`
`Oshkosh Corp. is similarly inapplicable. There, the Board declined institution
`
`because the district court had already rejected the same invalidity arguments
`
`finding that they did “not raise a substantial question concerning validity.”
`
`7
`
`

`

`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`Case Nos. IPR2019-01044, -01046, -01047, -01048
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16, 9 (PTAB May 15, 2019).
`
`For the ’502 patent, Deere argues that a co-pending reissue proceeding
`
`warrants denial of institution. But Guardian Building Prods., Inc., v. Johns
`
`Manville, cited by Deere, does not require this result because there, the appeal of
`
`the reissue proceeding (raising the same grounds of invalidity as the IPR) was
`
`already pending before the Board, and the Board simply chose to decide the issues
`
`in the reissue appeal proceeding. No. IPR2017-00633, Paper 13, 11-12 (PTAB
`
`July 26, 2017). Here, to the contrary, the reissue application is not under appeal
`
`and involves different grounds of rejection. Apex Med. Corp. v. ResMed Ltd. is
`
`likewise inapplicable because, unlike the patent at issue in that IPR, which had
`
`already reissued, the ’502 patent has not reissued, and Deere continues to assert it.
`
`No. IPR2013-00513, Paper 11, 3-4 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2014).
`
`Deere’s argument that the pending litigation merits denial of institution is
`
`flawed for the further reason that, as described above, Deere is taking inconsistent
`
`positions in the two forums. To deny on that basis would allow Deere to continue
`
`arguing for an overly broad construction to establish infringement in district court
`
`while avoiding before the Board the implications of doing so.
`
`For these reasons, and those in the Petitions, the IPRs should be instituted.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`/Grant K. Rowan/
`Grant K. Rowan, Registration No. 41,278
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,510,502
`Case No. IPR2019-01047
`
`Updated List of Exhibits for U.S. Patent No. 9,510,502 Petition for
`Inter Partes Review
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,510,502 to Garner et al. (“’502 patent”)
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`Declaration of Randal K. Taylor
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,193,523 to Koning (“Koning”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,681,706 to Sauder et al. (“Sauder”)
`
`U.K. Published Application No. GB 2,012,534A to Curtis
`(“Curtis”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,570 to Thiemke (“Thiemke”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,244,201 to Mauch et al. (“Mauch”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`i
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,510,502
`Case No. IPR2019-01047
`
`Description
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,023,509 to Hanson (“Hanson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,566,406 to Dougherty (“Dougherty”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,510,502
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Final Joint Claim Construction Chart, Deere & Co. v. AGCO Corp.
`et al., No. 1:18-cv-00827-CFC (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2019), ECF No.
`121
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,510,502
`Case No. IPR2019-01047
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on September 23, 2019, I caused a true and correct
`
`copy of the following materials:
`
`(cid:120) Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit 1035
`
`(cid:120) Petitioner’s Updated List of Exhibits
`
`to be served upon the following by ELECTRONIC MAIL:
`
`Jay I. Alexander, Reg. No. 32,678
`jalexander@cov.com
`Peter P. Chen, Reg. No. 39,631
`pchen@cov.com
`Rajesh D. Paul, Reg. No. 64,492
`rpaul@cov.com
`Nicholas L. Evoy, Reg. No. 74,552
`nevoy@cov.com
`Deere-IPRs@cov.com
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`/Greg Israelsen/
`R. Gregory Israelsen
`Registration No. 72,805
`
`iv
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket