UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2020-01628
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,439
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2020-01628
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,439
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`The Petition Should Be Denied Under § 314(a) .............................................. 1
`1.
`Fintiv Factor 1: No Evidence of Any Likelihood of a Stay .................. 1
`2.
`Fintiv Factor 2: Trial Date Remains Well In Advance of
`Board’s Deadline for Final Written Decision ....................................... 1
`Fintiv Factor 3: Substantial Investments at District Court .................... 3
`Fintiv Factor 4: Substantial Overlap of Issues in the Two
`Forums ................................................................................................... 3
`Fintiv Factor 5: Same Parties in the Two Forums ................................ 5
`5.
`Fintiv Factor 6: No Other Relevant Circumstances .............................. 5
`6.
`Englman Does Not Disclose Nor Suggest “Storing a Correspondence
`Between the Plurality of Users and the One of More Groups” ....................... 6
`
`3.
`4.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`10X Genomics, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College,
`IPR2020-01180, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2021) ........................................2, 5
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Freshub, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01145, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2021) ............................................ 2
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`876 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................ 7
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 7
`Keyme LLC v. The Hillman Group,
`IPR2020-01028, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2021) ........................................2, 5
`Snap, Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020) ............................................ 4
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................. 4
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00215, Paper 10, at 18 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2020) ................................. 5
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00034, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2020) .......................................1, 5
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00043, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020) .......................................... 2
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................ 1, 2, 5
`Rules & Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`ii
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`Description
`Sixth Amended Docket Control Order, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell
`Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311, Document 94 (E.D. Tex. Oct.
`23, 2020)
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Order Regarding Sixth Amended Docket Control Order, GREE,
`Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311, Document
`96 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2020)
`
`Joint Motion to Amend Docket Control Order, GREE, Inc. v.
`Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311, Document 93 (E.D.
`Tex. Oct. 22, 2020)
`
`Complaint, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-
`00311, Document 1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2019)
`
`Defendant Supercell Oy’s Invalidity Contentions and Disclosures
`Under Local Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.), dated April 7, 2020
`
`Exhibit B-2 to Defendant Supercell Oy’s Invalidity Contentions
`and Disclosures Under Local Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4, GREE, Inc.
`v. Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.),
`dated April 7, 2020
`
`Exhibit B-8 to Defendant Supercell Oy’s Invalidity Contentions
`and Disclosures Under Local Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4, GREE, Inc.
`v. Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.),
`dated April 7, 2020
`
`Excerpts of the Expert Report of Jose Zagal, GREE, Inc. v.
`Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.), dated
`November 2, 2020
`
`Buehler, Katie, ‘Clash of Clans’ Game Maker Owes $8.5M, Texas
`Jury Says, Law360 (September 18, 2020)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2010
`
`Description
`Order, Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al., Civil
`Action No. 2:19-cv-001520, Document 302 (E.D. Tex.), dated
`November 20, 2020
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, GREE, Inc.
`v. Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311, Document 86
`(E.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2020)
`
`Seventh Amended Docket Control Order, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell
`Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311, Document 120 (E.D. Tex.
`Dec. 10, 2020)
`
`Eighth Amended Docket Control Order, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell
`Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00311, Document 133 (E.D. Tex.
`Dec. 17, 2020)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`The Petition Should Be Denied Under § 314(a)
`In Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “POPR”), Patent Owner
`
`explains why the Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to
`
`deny the instant Petition. In Reply (Paper 7, “Reply”), Petitioner largely ignores
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments. Instead, Petitioner repeats its conclusory arguments from
`
`the Petition as well as other arguments it has previously—but unsuccessfully—
`
`submitted to the Board in prior proceedings. Petitioner’s arguments contradict the
`
`Board’s precedents, are belied by the record facts, and thus fail.
`
`Fintiv Factor 1: No Evidence of Any Likelihood of a Stay
`1.
`As previously held by the Board on numerous occasions, Petitioner’s
`
`stipulation that “it will seek a stay in the parallel litigation should the IPR be
`
`instituted” (Reply, at 3) is not sufficient evidence that a stay will, in fact, be granted
`
`upon institution. See, e.g., Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., PGR2020-00034, Paper 13,
`
`at 10. (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2020); see also POPR, at 7–9.
`
`2.
`
`Fintiv Factor 2: Trial Date Remains Well In Advance of Board’s
`Deadline for Final Written Decision
`Petitioner’s claim that this factor should be “afforded little weight” (Reply, at
`
`3) rings hollow and fails for all the reasons previously explained in Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response—which Petitioner fails to acknowledge, let alone rebut. See
`
`POPR, at 9–16. For example, the Board has previously rejected Petitioner’s
`
`argument that a trial date is uncertain simply in view of articles reporting the general
`
`
`
`potential for movement in trial dates in district courts. See, e.g., Supercell Oy v.
`
`GREE, Inc., PGR2020-00043, Paper 13, at 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020).
`
`Petitioner’s argument regarding the district court’s recent continuance of in-
`
`person jury trials from December 2020 through February 2021 (Reply, at 3–4) fares
`
`no better. As previously explained, that order expressly does not modify, let alone
`
`continue, the jury trial in the parallel proceeding, which is still scheduled for March
`
`1, 2021. POPR, at 12 n.3; see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Freshub, Ltd., IPR2020-
`
`01145, Paper 10, at 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2021) (noting 2021 trial date “remains
`
`undisturbed” despite court’s continuance of trials through December 31, 2020).
`
`Moreover, this Board “decline[s] … to speculate how long the trial date … may be
`
`delayed due to the effects of [a] district court’s backlog and practices in light of the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic.” 10X Genomics, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard
`
`College, IPR2020-01180, Paper 23, at 11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2021).
`
`And even if the trial is delayed by a few months as a result of the continuance,
`
`it will still likely conclude several months before a final written decision would be
`
`due. Indeed, trial in the parallel district court proceeding is currently scheduled to
`
`conclude approximately twelve months before a final written decision would be due
`
`in this proceeding. See POPR, at 14–16. Cf. Keyme LLC v. The Hillman Group,
`
`IPR2020-01028, Paper 12, at 8–9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2021) (finding this factor
`
`“significantly favors” discretionary denial under § 314(a) on similar facts).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Fintiv Factor 3: Substantial Investments at District Court
`3.
`Petitioner does not, and in fact cannot, dispute that the parties and district
`
`court have each already invested substantial time and resources in the parallel district
`
`court proceeding. See POPR, at 16–19. Instead, Petitioner purports to question those
`
`investments because certain case deadlines were extended. Reply, at 4 (citing Ex.
`
`1018). But, Petitioner ignores that each of those extended deadlines has already
`
`passed. Indeed, the parties already have completed both fact and expert discovery as
`
`well as all briefing on dispositive and Daubert motions. See POPR, at 17–18.
`
`Moreover, the parties will likely have completed a jury trial in the parallel
`
`proceeding by the time this Board decides whether to institute a trial in March 2021.
`
`See id. Forcing Patent Owner to re-litigate Petitioner’s same invalidity challenges
`
`for a year thereafter in this forum necessarily imposes unfair costs to Patent Owner.
`
`Fintiv Factor 4: Substantial Overlap of Issues in the Two Forums
`4.
`Petitioner’s contention that there is “lack of overlap between the instant IPR
`
`and the parallel litigation” (Reply at 1) completely ignores the substantial overlap in
`
`the claims, arguments and evidence presented in the two forums. See POPR at 21–
`
`29. Rather, Petitioner misconstrues this factor to require complete overlap between
`
`the forums. This factor expressly does not require complete duplication of grounds
`
`and evidence, but rather only “substantially the same” grounds, evidence, etc. See
`
`id. at 27–28. And Supercell’s argument that the inclusion of the tertiary reference
`
`3
`
`
`
`Schulhof in the Petition renders the prior art and arguments therein “materially
`
`different” than those presented at the district court (Reply at 1–2) is belied by the
`
`Petition itself, as previously explained. See POPR at 27–29.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Snap is misplaced in this regard. Reply at 1. There,
`
`the Board found this factor weighed in favor of not exercising discretion to deny
`
`given numerous differences in the art asserted “as well as the stay of the parallel
`
`District Court proceeding.” Snap, Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00820, Paper
`
`15, at 16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020) (emphasis added). There is no such stay here.
`
`Petitioner’s inherent reliance on Sotera is also misplaced. See Reply at 2–3.
`
`There, the Board found this factor weighed in favor of not exercising discretion to
`
`deny in view of petitioner’s stipulation that “if IPR is instituted, [petitioner] will not
`
`pursue in the District Court Litigation any ground raised or that could have been
`
`reasonably raised in an IPR.” Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-
`
`01019, Paper 12, at 18–19 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) (emphasis added). Here, in
`
`contrast, Petitioner only narrowly stipulates “that should IPR be instituted, it will not
`
`pursue the same grounds in the litigation.” Reply at 3 (emphasis added). “[B]ecause
`
`Petitioner fails to stipulate that it will not pursue in the district court any ground
`
`raised or that could have reasonably been raised in the proceeding, its proposal
`
`does not … address effectively concerns regarding duplicative efforts and potentially
`
`conflicting decisions, or help ensure that an IPR functions as a true alternative to
`
`4
`
`
`
`litigation in related to grounds that could be at issue in an IPR.” Keyme, IPR2020-
`
`01028, Paper 12, at 15 (emphasis added). Further, Petitioner’s stipulation is
`
`meaningless, as the parties will likely have completed a jury trial by the time this
`
`Board decides whether to institute a trial. See POPR, at 17–18.
`
`Fintiv Factor 5: Same Parties in the Two Forums
`5.
`Petitioner argues this factor “should be given little weight, as the petitioner-
`
`defendant is the party here most motivated to challenge the patent.” Reply, at 5. But
`
`the Board has rejected this exact same argument from this same Petitioner as
`
`inconsistent with Fintiv. See, e.g., Supercell, PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at 19–20.
`
`Fintiv Factor 6: No Other Relevant Circumstances
`6.
`Petitioner’s (incorrect) characterization of the merits as “strong” (Reply, at 5)
`
`does not justify institution in view of both the advanced stage of the parallel
`
`proceeding and the required balancing of the Fintiv factors. Indeed, even an
`
`allegedly “strong case on the merits” can be outweighed by the facts underlying
`
`Fintiv factors 2–5 collectively. Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., IPR2020-00215, Paper
`
`10, at 18 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2020); see, e.g., 10X Genomics, IPR2020-01180, Paper
`
`23 at 16–17 (denying institution despite the fact that “Petitioner appears to have
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likely it may prevail with respect to at least 1 claim”).
`
`For all the reasons set forth herein, as well as Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, the Board should deny institution of the instant Petition under § 314(a).
`
`5
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Englman Does Not Disclose Nor Suggest “Storing a Correspondence
`Between the Plurality of Users and the One of More Groups”
`In its Reply, Petitioner acknowledges that the term “correspondence” has
`
`multiple dictionary definitions. See Reply at 6 (conceding “[t]he plain meaning of
`
`‘correspondence’ may be two-fold”). Petitioner further concedes that “Petitioner did
`
`not propose a construction” for the term in the Petition itself. Id. at 6. After reviewing
`
`Patent Owner’s decisive explanation of why this demonstrates that Petitioner failed
`
`to carry its burden, Petitioner now attempts to use its failure to its advantage.
`
`As discussed in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Englman does not
`
`disclose nor suggest “storing a correspondence between the plurality of users and
`
`the one or more groups” in the claimed “storage unit.” POPR, at 36–37. Petitioner
`
`inherently concedes this fact in its Reply. Petitioner thus newly lobbies for an
`
`express construction of the term “correspondence” in an attempt to salvage its
`
`Petition. This Board requires Petitioner to address any and all claim terms that
`
`require construction in the Petition itself. See 37 CFR § 42.104(b)(3) “The statement
`
`must identify… [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.”). Petitioner
`
`undisputedly failed to do so here, and cannot reverse course now.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s newly proposed construction fails. First, it is based on
`
`one of many definitions of the term “correspondence” set forth in a general purpose
`
`online dictionary published in 2021. See Reply, at 6 n.1. It is axiomatic that the
`
`purpose of claim construction is “to ascribe the meaning to a claim term as
`
`6
`
`
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.”
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2019) (emphasis added). The undisputed time of the invention of the ’439 Patent is
`
`March 2013. See Pet. at 4. Extrinsic evidence in the form of a general purpose online
`
`dictionary in 2021—standing alone—necessarily fails to demonstrate how a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in March 2013 would have understand the term
`
`“correspondence” as used in the ’439 Patent. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., 876 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1148 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (finding 3GPP standard published
`
`in 2004 is not “properly extrinsic evidence as the patent was filed in 2000”).
`
`Second, the single one of many 2021 dictionary definitions selected by
`
`Petitioner for its construction contradicts the intrinsic evidence. As noted in Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response, the ’439 Patent describes: “[I]t is possible to share
`
`or communicate information among a plurality of users (guild members)
`
`constituting the same guild.” ’439 Patent at 1:59–61 (emphasis added). And the
`
`claims likewise recite “storing a correspondence between the plurality of users and
`
`the one or more groups” in the claimed “storage unit.” See, e.g., ’439 Patent at
`
`25:46–47 (claim 1). Furthermore, this intrinsic evidence comports with one of the
`
`dictionary definitions of the term “correspondence” Petitioner ignores: the “writing,
`
`receiving, and reading letters, especially between two people.” See Reply, at 6 n.1.
`
`The Board should not thus institute a proceeding on the instant Petition.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Dated: January 19, 2021
`
`By: /John C. Alemanni/
`
`John C. Alemanni
`Reg. No. 47,384
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.207 has been served electronically
`
`via email upon counsel for Petitioner at RPatel-ptab@fenwick.com.
`
`Dated: January 19, 2021
`
`By: /John C. Alemanni/
`John C. Alemanni
`Reg. No. 47,384
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`9
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
