`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: May 14, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OMNI MEDSCI, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00209
`Patent 10,213,113 B2
`___________
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`Supplemental Briefing on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00209
`Patent 10,213,113 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner, Apple, Inc., filed a Petition in this case on December 11,
`2019, challenging claims 1 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,213,113 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’113 patent”), owned by Omni MedSci, Inc. Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response on March 19, 2020.
`Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each set forth that Lisogurski,1 one of the
`two references asserted by Petitioner in its grounds for the unpatentability of
`the challenged claims, was before the Examiner in an Information
`Disclosure Statement (IDS) which the Examiner considered. Pet. 17–18
`(citing Ex. 1002, 164, 166); Prelim. Resp. 1, 11 (citing Ex. 1002, 164–206).
`Patent Owner additionally states that an invalidity claim chart prepared by
`Petitioner regarding the application of Lisogurski to certain claims in related
`patents was also filed in an IDS and considered by the Examiner. Prelim.
`Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1002, 201 (Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt for
`“Exhibit_P.PDF”), 164–206; Ex. 2022).
`Petitioner argues that we should not deny institution under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) as Lisogurski was not discussed by the Examiner and received only
`“cursory consideration.” Pet. 17–18 (quoting Intex Recreation Corp. v.
`Team Worldwide Corp., IPR2018-00871, Paper 14, at 13 (PTAB Sept. 14,
`2018)). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that the Board
`should apply its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of
`the requested proceeding because the Examiner considered Lisogurski and,
`additionally, the invalidity claim chart which mapped Lisogurski to claims
`
`
`1 Lisogurski et al., US Patent No. 9,241,676 B2 (issued Jan. 26, 2016) (Ex.
`1011).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00209
`Patent 10,213,113 B2
`
`with similar limitations. Prelim. Resp. 13–23 (citing Becton, Dickinson &
`Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB
`Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph, designated Aug.
`2, 2019)). Patent Owner additionally argues that the second reference
`asserted by Petitioner is cumulative of Lisogurski. Id. at 1, 14–17, 22.
`On review of the parties’ submissions, we determine that it would be
`helpful to the Board for the parties to provide additional briefing on the
`applicability of § 325(d) to this case. In particular, we request that the
`parties address a decision made precedential after these filings by the parties:
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (designated precedential
`Mar. 24, 2020). The decision explains that the Board uses a two-part
`framework under § 325(d), specifically,
`(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was
`presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the
`same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and
`(2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is
`satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office
`erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged
`claims.
`Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Under the first part of the framework,
`previously presented art includes “art made of record by the Examiner, and
`art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information
`Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged
`patent.” Id. at 7–8. Under the second part of the framework, a
`demonstration of Examiner material error “may include misapprehending or
`overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings
`impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. at 8–9 n.9. And “[i]f
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00209
`Patent 10,213,113 B2
`
`reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or
`arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to
`patentability.” Id. at 9.
`
`Advanced Bionics also acknowledges that the Becton, Dickinson
`factors “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under . . .
`§ 325(d).” Id. at 9 & n.10 (detailing the Becton, Dickinson factors). So we
`also encourage the parties to discuss any Becton, Dickinson factors relevant
`to the facts of this case. The parties may submit additional evidence from
`the prosecution history of the ’113 patent to support any facts asserted in the
`supplemental briefing. No other new evidence is permitted.
`
`
`II. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a reply to the
`Preliminary Response, no more than five (5) pages and limited to addressing
`the issue of discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), by May 21, 2020;
`and it is
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a
`sur-reply to Petitioner’s reply, no more than five (5) pages and limited to the
`issue of discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), by May 28, 2020.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00209
`Patent 10,213,113 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`Thomas A. Broughan III
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`clfukuda@sidley.com
`tbroughan@sidley.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas A. Lewry
`John S. LeRoy
`Robert C. J. Tuttle
`John M. Halan
`Christopher C. Smith
`Andrew B. Turner
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C
`tlewry@brookskushman.com
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`rtuttle@brookskushman.com
`jhalan@brookskushman.com
`csmith@brookskushman.com
`aturner@brookskushman.com
`
`5
`
`