`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Date: October 7, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SOTERA WIRELESS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,975,300)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be entered in each case.
`The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for subsequent papers
`without prior Board approval.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,975,300)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623)
`
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. (“Petitioner”) has filed Petitions pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute inter partes reviews of claims 1–22 of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,213,108 (IPR2020-00912, Paper 1); claims 1–20 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,788,735 (IPR2020-00954, Paper 1); claims 1–20 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,975,300 (IPR2020-01015, Paper 1); and claims 1–20 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,872,623 (IPR2020-01054, Paper 1).
`Masimo Corporation (“Patent Owner”) has filed a Preliminary
`Response in each proceeding. IPR2020-00912, Paper 8; IPR2020-00954,
`Paper 7; IPR2020-01015, Paper 6; IPR2020-01054, Paper 6. Patent Owner,
`in part, urges us to exercise our discretion to deny institution, because a trial
`here would be an inefficient use of Board resources, in view of the related,
`parallel district court action, Masimo Corp. v. Sotera Wireless, Inc., Civil
`Action No. 3:19-cv-01100-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal.) (“the District Court
`Litigation”). See IPR2020-00912, Paper 8, 15–21; IPR2020-00954, Paper 7,
`15–21; IPR2020-01015, Paper 6, 13–19; IPR2020-01054, Paper 6, 14–21.
`Upon review of the foregoing, we have concluded further briefing is
`warranted concerning the factual and legal issues presented as to Patent
`Owner’s foregoing argument, in particular to address the factors laid out in
`Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`(precedential) (“Fintiv”). We, therefore, authorize the parties to file further
`evidence and argument, as follows.
`It is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner may file in each of the captioned
`proceedings, on or before Friday, October 16, 2020, a Reply to the
`Preliminary Response, of no more than seven (7) pages in length, addressing
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00912 (Patent 10,213,108)
`IPR2020-00954 (Patent 9,788,735)
`IPR2020-01015 (Patent 9,975,300)
`IPR2020-01054 (Patent 9,872,623)
`
`the Fintiv factors, and including, if desired, new evidence concerning the
`status of the District Court Litigation and the relevance thereof to the present
`proceedings; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may file in each of the
`captioned proceedings, on or before Friday, October 23, 2020, a Sur-reply to
`any Reply filed by Petitioner, of no more than seven (7) pages in length, and
`including, if desired, new evidence concerning the status of the District
`Court Litigation and the relevance thereof to the present proceedings.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.
`Daisy Manning
`Nathan P. Sportel
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`PTAB-RTelscher@huschblackwell.com
`PTAB-DManning@huschblackwell.com
`Nathan.Sportel@huschblackwell.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Sheila Swaroop
`Irfan A. Lateef
`Benjamin Everton
`Brian C. Claassen
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON, & BEAR, LLP
`2sns@knobbe.com
`2ial@knobbe.com
`2bje@knobbe.com
`2bcc@knobbe.com
`
`3
`
`