throbber
IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`GREGORY HOPEWELL, Reg. No. 66,012
`GEOFFREY MILLER
`ERIC ZHOU, Reg. No. 68,842
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: 650.988.8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01619
`Patent 10,413,832 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.71
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND REQUESTED RELIEF .......................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 1
`BASIS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF ..................................................... 2
`1.
`The NHK-Fintiv Factors Support Institution ........................................ 2
`a.
`The Board’s conclusion regarding Factor 2 rests on
`clearly erroneous fact finding. .................................................... 2
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked that the
`parallel proceeding investment is primarily in non-
`overlapping issues. ...................................................................... 4
`The Board’s conclusion regarding Factor 6 rests on
`clearly erroneous fact finding and is clearly
`unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful.............................................. 5
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the proper
`weighing of the Fintiv factors. .................................................... 7
`Exercising Discretion Based on the NHK-Fintiv Factors Is
`Improper ................................................................................................ 8
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`2.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ..................................passim
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00180, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2020) ........................................... 6
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2020) ............................................ 7
`Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 10
`Facebook, Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`IPR2019-00899, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2019) .............................................. 4
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`953 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (reinstated on rehearing in
`relevant part, slip op. Sept. 4, 2020) .................................................................... 9
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 1, 3, 6, 7
`NanoCellect Biomedial, Inc., v. Cytonome/ST, LLC,
`IPR2020-00551, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020) ........................................... 7
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) ............................................. 2
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ........................................... 7
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ......................................... 7, 8
`VMWare, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2020-00407, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020) ........................................... 7
`Westinghouse Air Brake Techs. Corp. v. Siemens Mobility, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01263, Paper 56 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2016) ............................................ 6
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01552
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .............................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. § 326(b) ................................................................................................... 11
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ....................................................................................................... 1
`83 FR 51340, 51341 (Oct. 11, 2018) ......................................................................... 4
`The Eleventh Auer: The Effect of Kisor v. Wilkie On Rulemaking and
`Adjudication at the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`19, Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 485, 501-502 (2020) ............................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,076,708 to Yoshikawa
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,708
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,413,832 to Yoshikawa
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,413,832
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,583,365 to Yoshikawa
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,365
`
`Expert Declaration of Ravin Balakrishnan
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Ravin Balakrishnan
`
`Robert Corrina, “What is a Role Playing Game?,” Gamasutra
`
`“Secret of Monkey Island, The Download (Adventure Game),”
`old-games.com
`
`Final Fantasy VI Advance Instruction Booklet, Nintendo of America
`
`Daniel Primed, “Wasteland Ventures (Fallout) #5 – 3 Forms of
`Grind,” Daniel Primed
`
`“Microsoft Excel 2003 for Beginners,” California State University,
`Northridge, Information Technology Training Guide
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,643,454 to Ondis (“Ondis”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,147,316 to Arezina et al. (“Arezina”)
`
`Sarah Phillips, “A brief history of Facebook,” The Guardian
`
`Michael Arrington, “Social Games: How the Big Three Make
`Millions,” TechCrunch
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Description
`
`Juha-Matti Vanhatupa, “Browser Games for Online Communities,”
`International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN),
`Vol. 2, No. 3, August 2010
`
`“FarmVille for Dummies” by Angela Morales and Kyle Orland,
`ISBN: 978-1-118-01696-1 (“FVD”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,843,853 to Smoak et al. (“Smoak”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,357,718 to Yamaoka et al. (“Yamaoka”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0129590 to Morrisroe et al. (“Morrisroe”)
`
`Plaintiff's Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. 63, Filed July 24,
`2020 (ED Texas 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP)
`
`Patent Owner's Preliminary Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.207,
`Case PGR2020-00053
`
`Scott McKeown, Congress Urged to Investigate PTAB Discretionary
`Denials, Patents Post-Grant (June 30, 2020)
`
`Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB
`Discretionary Denials, Patents Post-Grant (July 24, 2020)
`
`GREE, Inc.’s Opposition to Supercell Oy’s Motion for Relief in View
`of Governmental / Public Health Restrictions in Response to Covid-
`19 Impact, Dkt. 102, Entered April 29, 2020 (ED Texas
`2:19-cv-00161-JRG-RSP)
`
`Fourth Amended Docket Control Order, Dkt. 102, Entered
`April 29, 2020 (ED Texas 2:19-cv-00310)
`
`GREE, Inc.’s Paragraph 1 and 3 Initial and Additional Disclosures,
`February 18, 2020 (ED Texas 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP))
`
`Supercell Oy’s Notice of Deposition of Tomoki Yasuhara,
`August 24, 2020 (ED Texas 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP,
`2:19-cv-00311-JRG-RSP)
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`Description
`
`Supercell Oy’s Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Plaintiff
`Gree, Inc., August 7, 2020 (ED Texas 2:19-cv-310-JGR-RSP,
`2:19-cv-00311)
`
`Sixth Amended Docket Control Order [Dkt 94], entered on October
`23, 2020, Case No. 19-cv-00311 (E.D. Texas)
`
`Order (Granting Continuance of In-Person Jury Trials) (Dkt. 261),
`entered on November 20, 2020, Infernal Technology, LLC, et al. v.
`Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Case. No. 19-cv-00248 (E.D.
`Texas)
`
`Texas COVID-19 Active Case Data By County, available at
`https://dshs.state.tx.us/coronavirus/TexasCOVID-
`19ActiveCaseDatabyCounty.xlsx (retrieved February 8, 2021).
`
`Texas Department of State Health Services Website, Texas COVID-
`19 Data, available at
`https://dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/additionaldata.aspx (retrieved
`February 8, 2021).
`
`New coronavirus variant could take over by spring, experts day, The
`Dallas Morning News, Jan. 16, 2021, available at
`https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2021/01/16/new-coronavirus-
`variant-could-take-over-by-spring-experts-say/.
`
`Katie Buehler, COVID-19 Outbreak Leads to Mistrial in EDTX,
`Law360 (Nov. 17, 2020),
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1329617/covid-19-outbreak-leads-
`to-mistrial-in-edtx
`
`Order entered on November 20, 2020, Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung
`Display Co., Ltd., [Dkt 302], Case No. 2:19-cv-00152-JRG
`
`Amended Docket Control Order, entered October 7, 2020 [Dkt. 81],
`Civil Case No. 19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.).
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Email from Michael Morlock to Fenwick & West, February 22, 2021
`regarding reduction to claims at issue, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`ED Texas Case Nos. 2:19-cv-00200, -00237, -00310, -00311
`
`Email from Adrienne Dellinger, Law Clerk to Chief Judge Rodney
`Gilstrap, Feb. 25, 2021, regarding Order of Trials for March 2021
`(ED Texas)
`
`Email from Taylor Mauze, Law Clerk to Chief Judge Rodney
`Gilstrap, March 2, 2021, regarding March 15, 2021 Jury Selection
`and Trial Procedures (ED Texas)
`
`Report and Recommendation entered on April 16, 2021 (regarding
`Supercell Oy’s Motions for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under
`35 U.S.C. § 101), Civil Case Nos. 19-cv-00200, -00237, -00310, and
`-00311-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`INTRODUCTION AND REQUESTED RELIEF
`A.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71, Petitioner Supercell Oy (“Supercell” or
`
`“Petitioner”) respectfully requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,413,832 (the “’832 Patent”)
`
`(Paper 15) (“Decision”) because the Board “misapprehended or overlooked” matters
`
`addressed by the Petition and thus abused its discretion in denying institution.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) and (d). Specifically, the Board misapprehended the
`
`impact of the lack of overlap between the issues in the district court and this
`
`proceeding and improperly weighed the Fintiv factors to deny institution.
`
`B.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter
`
`was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, [or] a reply.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision
`
`for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion is found if
`
`the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an
`
`erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or
`
`(4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally
`
`base its decision.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821
`
`F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`C. BASIS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`The NHK-Fintiv Factors Support Institution
`1.
`The Board relied on the multi-factor test set forth in the precedential
`
`NHK Spring decision and Fintiv order in reaching its decision to deny institution.
`
`See generally Decision at 5-27; NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Apple Inc. v.
`
`Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In
`
`its analysis, the Board concluded that Factors 1 (stay) and 6 (other circumstances,
`
`including the merits) were neutral, Factors 2 (proximity of trial), 3 (investment),
`
`and 5 (parties) weighed in favor of Patent Owner, and Factor 4 (overlap) weighed
`
`in favor of Petitioner. Decision at 15. Ultimately, the Board concluded that
`
`“Factors 2 and 3 are particularly relevant here, where the trial in the district court
`
`will likely occur within approximately two months of this Decision.” Id.
`
`Therefore, the Board determined “that the circumstances presented weigh in favor
`
`of denying institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” Id. at 15-16.
`
`However, the Board overlooked or misapprehended facts regarding Factors
`
`2, 3, and 6 that, when properly considered, tip the balance in favor of institution.
`
`a.
`
`The Board’s conclusion regarding Factor 2 rests on clearly
`erroneous fact finding.
`In its Decision, the Board noted that the trial at that time was scheduled to
`
`proceed on March 1, 2021. Decision at 8. However, after the Decision was issued,
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`that date in fact did get further delayed, and the trial now is scheduled to start on
`
`April 30, 2021. Although the Board correctly noted that the final written decision
`
`would still be due months after that date, in making its conclusion about Factor 2,
`
`the Board appeared to have overlooked its own findings about the lack of overlap
`
`between this proceeding and the district court litigation. The Board based its
`
`decision for Factor 2 on “the expected May 2021 trial date in the district court
`
`litigation” (Decision at 11), without acknowledgment that the two proceedings
`
`would address different art and arguments – as it stated in its discussion of Factor
`
`4: “the would be only minimal overlap between the invalidity issues before us and
`
`the district court” (id. at 14) – which impacts the Factor 2 analysis as well, since
`
`the potential for inconsistent results between the two forums is minimal.
`
`This is inconsistent with the Board’s own statements under Factor 4, and
`
`thus the Board’s conclusion about Factor 2 “rests on clearly erroneous fact
`
`finding” – indeed, facts that are internally inconsistent with the Board’s own
`
`conclusions about Factor 4 – and thus the Board’s conclusion under Factor 2
`
`constitutes an “abuse of discretion” under Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1367.
`
`Further, due to the lack of overlap, key issues in the Petition will not be
`
`resolved in the parallel proceeding, as Patent Owner had argued. PO Overlap Br.
`
`at 2. In particular, in addition to the non-overlapping art and arguments, only two
`
`dependent claims remain in the district court proceeding of the 15 claims
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`(including 3 independent claims) in this proceeding. The Petition thus presents
`
`significant non-overlapping claim challenges that weigh against discretionary
`
`denial. See Facebook, Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2019-00899, Paper 15 at 12
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2019). These issues impact not just Factor 4 where the Board
`
`considered them, but Factor 2 as well, since they reduce the likelihood of
`
`“inconsistent results” in the district court. When the lack of overlap is properly
`
`considered, the facts weigh in favor of institution.
`
`b.
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked that the parallel
`proceeding investment is primarily in non-overlapping
`issues.
`The Board’s conclusion regarding Factor 3 (investment) appears to have
`
`overlooked that the fact that the bulk of the investment made by the court at this
`
`stage has been for issues not present in this proceeding. For example, different art is
`
`applied between the two forums, and this proceeding does not assert invalidity based
`
`on either § 101 or § 112. Indeed, the one area of overlap is claim construction, for
`
`which a Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order has issued, which
`
`decreases the claim construction investment required by the Board, since the Board
`
`“shall” consider that construction. See 83 FR 51340, 51341 (Oct. 11, 2018). As a
`
`result, most of the briefs, disclosures, and testimony to date in the litigation, that
`
`forms the basis of the “investment” by the court and the parties that the Board relied
`
`on in its conclusion that Factor 3 favors denial, is entirely irrelevant to the issues
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`present in this proceeding. Thus, in finding that “substantial investments have been
`
`made in the parallel proceeding” (Decision at 12), the Board overlooked the fact that
`
`the investment has been almost entirely in issues that do not overlap with those in
`
`this proceeding, and thus should be afforded little weight. These issues impact not
`
`just Factor 4 where the Board considered them, but Factor (2 and) 3 as well, since
`
`they impact the relevance of the particular investment by the district court. When
`
`properly considered, the minimal overlap by the court with the issues relevant to this
`
`proceeding weighs in favor of institution.
`
`c.
`
`The Board’s conclusion regarding Factor 6 rests on clearly
`erroneous fact finding and is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary,
`or fanciful.
`The Board’s analysis regarding Factor 6 appears to disregard precedent
`
`regarding what makes the “merits” of a case weak or strong, and the preliminary
`
`nature of the facts present in every institution decision. The Board found that
`
`Petitioner “adequately makes an initial showing” that the references “teach or
`
`suggest at least the limitations of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have combined the asserted references.” Decision at 15. Yet, because
`
`Patent Owner raises a challenge to Yamaoka, which challenge the Board says is
`
`“best decided on a full record as developed at trial, not the preliminary record
`
`before us,” the Board concludes that although the merits “are adequate for
`
`institution,” they also are “neither weak nor strong.” Id.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`However, “adequate for institution” is exactly the standard the Petitioner
`
`needs to meet at the institution decision stge. The standard under 35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`is whether there is “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail” based
`
`on the petition as filed. In every case, the Board makes its institution decision on a
`
`similar “preliminary record” as is present in this instance. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v.
`
`Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00180, Paper 12 at 17 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2020);
`
`Westinghouse Air Brake Techs. Corp. v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., IPR2017-01263,
`
`Paper 56 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2016). Here, the Board concluded that Petitioner
`
`did in fact make an initial showing “adequate for institution,” yet somehow still
`
`found the merits “neither weak nor strong” and this factor “neutral.” Decision at
`
`15. Such a conclusion is “clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful,” and thus
`
`constitutes an “abuse of discretion” under Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at
`
`1367. Under a proper rationale, Factor 6 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`In Fintiv itself, the Board specifically stated that “if the merits of a ground
`
`raised in the petition seem particularly strong on the preliminary record, this fact has
`
`favored institution.” Fintiv at 14-15 (emphasis added). Fintiv states that institution
`
`in such an instance “may serve the interest of overall system efficiency and
`
`integrity.” Id. By concluding that the merits are “adequate for institution” yet
`
`finding this factor “neutral,” the Board has decided that Petitioner met the institution
`
`standard, but somehow that wasn’t sufficient for this factor to weigh in favor of
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`institution. Decision at 15. This paradox constitutes an “abuse of discretion” by the
`
`Board under Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1367.
`
`d.
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the proper
`weighing of the Fintiv factors.
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the weighing of the factors when
`
`conducting the holistic analysis of Fintiv, used reasoning that was clearly
`
`unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful, and came to its ultimate conclusion based on
`
`erroneous findings of fact. In particular, Factor 6 especially should weigh in favor
`
`of institution under the correct reasoning.
`
`The Board previously has found Factors 4 and 6 to be definitive in reaching
`
`its decisions to institute, regardless of its findings regarding other factors. See, e.g.,
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp., IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 9
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) (Informative); Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`
`IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2020); NanoCellect Biomedial, Inc., v.
`
`Cytonome/ST, LLC, IPR2020-00551, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020); VMWare,
`
`Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2020-00407, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18,
`
`2020). Here, Factors 4 and 6 are likewise strong, and the Board should institute this
`
`IPR consistent with its prior decisions.
`
`Moreover, in Sand Revolution and in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020), stipulations that the Petitioner
`
`would “forfeit any §§ 102 or 103 arguments based on prior art patents or printed
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`publications” such that there was no overlap in these issues between the two
`
`forums was sufficient to “mitigate any concerns of duplicative efforts between
`
`the district court and the Board, as well as concerns of potentially conflicting
`
`decisions.” Sotera Wireless, IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 19. In this proceeding,
`
`there is minimal overlap in one ground, and no overlap in §§ 102 or 103
`
`arguments at all under Ground 2, to which Petitioner is willing to limit the
`
`Petition, and thus concerns of duplicative efforts are, and were, mitigated from
`
`the start.
`
`The Board appears to have misapprehended or overlooked the similarity of
`
`case precedent in which the overlap factor carried great import in whether to
`
`apply discretion to denial institution, and appears not to have considered
`
`Petitioner’s additional briefing on the import of the overlap factor (Paper 12).
`
`As discussed above, when correctly considered, Factors 2, 3 and 6 each
`
`weigh in favor of institution as well as Factor 4 as found by the Board, which
`
`collectively outweigh Factors 1 (neutral) and 5 (weighs towards denial). Thus,
`
`when fully considered, the holistic analysis favors institution.
`
`2.
`
`Exercising Discretion Based on the NHK-Fintiv Factors Is
`Improper
`In fact, the entire NHK-Fintiv framework relied on by the Board to deny
`
`institution is improper. Section § 314(a) sets forth the requirements for the
`
`Director to institute IPR; it does not grant the Director authority to create new
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`tests for denying institution. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (“The Director may not
`
`authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless…”). Rather, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(a)(2) requires the Director to prescribe regulations “setting forth the
`
`standards for the showing of sufficient grounds to institute a review under
`
`subsection (a) of section 314.”
`
`The Director has not prescribed regulations setting forth the standards used
`
`by the Board to deny institution of the instant Petition. Neither the precedential
`
`decision and order of NHK-Fintiv nor the 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`(“2019 TPG”) are regulations. See Andrew Schneider & Jonathan Stroud, The
`
`Eleventh Auer: The Effect of Kisor v. Wilkie On Rulemaking and Adjudication at
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 19 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 485,
`
`501-502 (2020) (finding that neither the 2019 TPG nor the SOP 2, which includes
`
`guidance on the process for designating PTAB decisions as precedential, are the
`
`result of notice-and-comment rulemaking). Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit has expressly found that precedential opinions are not regulations
`
`within the context of § 316(a), stating that “[t]here is no indication in the statute
`
`that Congress either intended to delegate broad substantive rulemaking authority to
`
`the Director to interpret statutory provisions through POP opinions or intended him
`
`to engage in any rulemaking other than through the mechanism of prescribing
`
`regulations.” Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 953 F.3d 1313, 1340
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (reinstated on rehearing in relevant part, slip op. Sept. 4, 2020)
`
`(additional views by Prost, C.J., Plager & O’Malley, J.J.).
`
`The NHK-Fintiv framework is thus procedurally invalid because it prescribes
`
`a new standard for institution but was not promulgated via the requisite regulation.
`
`The “Patent Office cannot effect an end-run around its congressionally delegated
`
`authority by conducting rulemaking through adjudication without undertaking the
`
`process of promulgating a regulation.” Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290,
`
`1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (separate opinion of Reyna & Dyk, J.J.). Any rule “resulting”
`
`from such evasion of the congressionally specified process “is a nullity.” Id. at 1338.
`
`This invalid framework is apparent from the Patent Office’s own writings.
`
`Fintiv states that “in evaluating the factors, the Board takes a holistic view of
`
`whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or
`
`instituting review. See 2019 TPG at 58 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)).” Fintiv at 6.
`
`The portion of the 2019 TPG cited by Fintiv states, in relevant part: “There may be
`
`other reasons besides the ‘follow-on’ petition context where the ‘effect . . . on the
`
`economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the
`
`Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings,’ 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(b), favors denying a petition even though some claims meet the threshold
`
`standards for institution under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), and 324(a).” 2019 TPG at 58.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`However, as discussed above, both §§ 316(b) and 326(b) require the Director
`
`to consider “the economy, the integrity of the patent system, [and] the efficient
`
`administration of the Office” “[i]n prescribing regulations.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(b),
`
`326(b) (emphasis added). Thus, the 2019 TPG misstates the law by using the
`
`economy, integrity, and efficiency factors outside the context of regulation. It is
`
`improper for the Director, and the Board, to deny institution based on these
`
`considerations absent properly-promulgated regulations. Hence, the Board, in its
`
`reliance on “binding precedent” to exercise its discretion to deny institution of a
`
`meritorious petition, has overlooked or misunderstood the law.
`
`D. CONCLUSION
`Petitioners respectfully request that the Board rehear the Decision and grant
`
`institution based on all grounds raised in the Petition.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 23, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`/Jennifer R. Bush/
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Reg. No. 50,784
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01619
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s Request for
`
`Rehearing and Exhibit 1043 were served on Patent Owner’s lead and back-up
`
`counsel in its entirety by electronic service at the email addresses provided below:
`
`Andrew W. Rinehart
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Ropes & Gray
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 2006
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`/Jennifer R. Bush/
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Reg. No. 50,784
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`
`John C. Alemanni
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1400
`Raleigh, NC 27609
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Joshua H. Lee
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-6582
`jlee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Dated: April 23, 2021
`Fenwick & West LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: (650) 988-8500
`
`
`12
`
`

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