throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 29
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 24, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ELEKTA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`On May 28, 2020, Elekta Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`“Petition” or “Pet.”) to institute inter partes review of claims 43, 44, and 46
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,393,096 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’096 patent,”) and a Motion
`for Joinder (Paper 3, “Motion” or “Mot.”) with Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
`v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00072 (“Varian IPR”).
`Subsequently, during a conference call held on June 10, 2020, counsel for
`Best Medical International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) represented that Patent
`Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s Motion and will not file a preliminary
`response. See Paper 7 (Order documenting the conference call).
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute 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;
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of
`record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least 1 claim of the
`’096 patent. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of claims 43, 44,
`and 46 of the ’096 patent. We also grant Petitioner’s Motion.
`
`Related Proceedings
`The parties identify the following proceedings related to the
`’096 patent (Pet. 3–4; Paper 6, 1–2):
`Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03409-MLB (N.D.
`
`A.
`
`Ga.);
`
`
`
`Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta AB, No. 1:18-cv-01600-MN (D. Del.);
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01599 (D.
`Del.);
`Elekta Inc. v. Best Med. Int’l, Inc., IPR2020-00074; and the Varian
`
`IPR.
`
`B.
`
`We also note that Petitioner has challenged patents owned by Patent
`Owner in IPR2020-00067, IPR2020-00070, IPR2020-00073,
`IPR2020-00956, and IPR2020-00971.
`
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 43, 44, and 46 of the
`’096 patent on the following grounds. Pet 6.
`Challenged Claims
`35 U.S.C. §
`43, 44, 46
`103(a)1
`43, 44, 46
`103(a)
`
`References
`Carol-1995, 2 Viggars3
`Curran-5, 4 Carol-25
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’096 patent
`was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the relevant
`amendment), the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`2 Peacock™: A System for Planning and Rotational Delivery of Intensity-
`Modulated Fields,” International Journal of Imaging Systems and
`Technology (Spring 1995) (Ex. 1006, “Carol-1995”).
`3 Viggars D.A., et al., “The Objective Evaluation of Alternative Treatment
`Plans III: The Quantitative Analysis of Dose Volume Histograms,”
`International Journal of Radiation Oncology • Biology • Physics, 23:419–27
`(1992) (Ex. 1015, “Viggars”).
`4 Curran, B.H., Chapter 5 – Conformal Radiation Therapy Using a Multileaf
`Intensity Modulating Collimator, The Theory & Practice of Intensity
`Modulated Radiation Therapy (1997) 75– 90 (Ex. 1007, “Curran-5”).
`5 Carol, M.P., Chapter 2 – IMRT: Where We Are Today, The Theory &
`Practice of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (1997) 17–36 (Ex. 1020,
`“Carol-2”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`Challenged Claims
`43, 44, 46
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)
`
`References
`Curran-5, Carol-176
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Kenneth P. Gall, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002) in
`support of its contentions.
`
`
`A.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`We instituted an inter parties review in the Varian IPR on all
`challenged claims and all asserted grounds of unpatentability. Varian IPR,
`Paper 15. Petitioner here challenges the same claims and asserts the same
`grounds of unpatentability as those on which we instituted the Varian IPR.
`Pet. 1 (“The challenges to claims 43, 44, and 46 presented herein are
`substantively identical to Varian’s challenges in IPR2020-00072 and are
`based on the same evidence as presented in IPR2020-00072”); Mot. 1.
`Petitioner also relies on the same declarant as did the petitioner in the Varian
`IPR. Mot. 4. Compare Ex. 1002, with Varian IPR, Ex. 1002 (Declarations
`of Kenneth P. Gall, Ph.D.).
`Because the issues in the instant Petition are identical to those in the
`Varian IPR, and for the same reasons stated in our Decision on Institution in
`the Varian IPR, we institute inter partes review in this proceeding on the
`grounds presented in the Petition. See Varian IPR, Paper 15.
`
`
`
`6 Carol, M.P., Chapter 17 – Where We Go From Here: One Person’s Vision,
`The Theory & Practice of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (1997)
`243–52 (Ex. 1021, “Carol-17”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`B. Motion for Joinder
`Joinder in an inter partes review is subject to the provisions of
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c):
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review,
`the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that
`inter partes review any person who properly files a petition
`under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a
`preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the
`time for filing such a response, determines warrants the
`institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is
`entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder
`should: (1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what
`impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing
`review. Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView, LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4
`(PTAB Apr. 24, 2013).
`We determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that
`joinder is appropriate because, as set forth above, the Petition here: (1) is
`substantively identical to the petition in the Varian IPR; (2) contains the
`same grounds based on the same evidence; and (3) relies on the same
`declaration of Dr. Kenneth P. Gall. Mot., passim; Ex. 1002. Petitioner also
`represents that it “is willing to streamline discovery and briefing by taking
`an ‘understudy role,’ so that the proposed joinder will not complicate or
`delay the schedule in the Varian IPR.” Mot. 1.
`Additionally, “so long as Varian remains an active party in the joined
`proceeding,” Petitioner: (1) “shall be bound by any agreement between
`Patent Owner and Varian concerning discovery and/or depositions,” (2) shall
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`not receive at depositions “any direct examination, cross examination, or
`redirect time beyond that permitted in this proceeding under either 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53 or any agreement between Patent Owner and Varian,” (3) agrees that
`“‘[a]ll filings by Elekta in the joined proceeding shall be consolidated with
`the filings of Varian, unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not
`involve Varian,” and (4) “shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds
`not already instituted by the Board in the Varian IPR, or introduce any
`argument or discovery not already introduced by Varian.” Mot. 7–8.
`We determined above that the Petition warrants the institution of an
`inter partes review. Under these circumstances, we agree with Petitioner
`that joinder is appropriate and will not unduly impact the ongoing trial in the
`Varian IPR. We limit Petitioner’s participation in the joined proceeding, as
`follows: (1) Varian alone is responsible for all petitioner filings in the joined
`proceeding until such time that it is no longer an entity in the joined
`proceeding, and (2) Petitioner is bound by all filings by Varian in the joined
`proceeding, except for (a) filings regarding termination or settlement, and
`(b) filings where Petitioner receives permission to file an independent paper.
`Petitioner must obtain prior Board authorization to file any paper or take any
`action on its own in the joined proceeding, so long as Varian remains as a
`non-terminated petitioner in the joined proceeding. This arrangement
`promotes the just and efficient administration of the ongoing trial in the
`Varian IPR, and protects the interests of Varian as original petitioner in
`IPR2020-00072, and of Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we institute inter partes review of claims
`43, 44, and 46 of the ’096 patent based on the grounds of unpatentability set
`forth in the Petition. We grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and join
`Petitioner to IPR2020-00072, with the limitations set forth herein.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review is
`hereby instituted as to claims 43, 44, and 46 of the ’096 patent with respect
`to the grounds set forth in the Petition;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a), Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 3) is granted,
`and Petitioner is joined as a petitioner in IPR2020-00072;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the asserted grounds of unpatentability on
`which the Board instituted inter partes review in IPR2020-00072 are
`unchanged and remain the only instituted grounds;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in IPR2020-00072,
`and any modifications thereto, shall govern the schedule of the joined
`proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that all further filings in the joined
`proceedings are to be made in IPR2020-00072;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2020-00072 for all
`further submissions shall be modified to add Elekta Inc. as a named
`Petitioner, and to indicate by footnote the joinder of IPR2020-00970 to that
`proceeding, as indicated in the attached sample case caption; and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the record in IPR2020-00072.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`PETITIONER:
`Tamara D. Fraizer
`Christopher W. Adams
`Vid R. Bhakar
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`tamara.fraizer@squirepb.com
`christopher.adams@squirepb.com
`vid.bhakar@squirepb.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Anthony Son
`Matthew Ruedy
`Kaveh Saba
`Jeremy Edwards
`Maddox Edwards PLLC
`ason@meiplaw.com
`mruedy@meiplaw.com
`ksaba@meiplaw.com
`jedwards@meiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00970
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`
`
`Sample Case Caption
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. and ELEKTA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-000721
`Patent 6,393,096 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2020-00970 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

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