`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`JUUL LABS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NJOY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00161
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,881 B1
`
`Title: Electronic Vaporizer
`
`Filing Date: December 13, 2016
`
`Issue Date: July 2, 2019
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner Does Not Dispute That The Prior Art Fails To Disclose A
`“Housing Having A [First/Second] Aperture” ................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Exceeded the Word Count .............................................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,881 B1
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s POPR
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s reply is without merit. Petitioner does not contest that its prior art
`
`references fail to disclose a housing having a first aperture. Instead, Petitioner argues
`
`that, despite the clear language of the claims, the aperture need not be in the housing;
`
`or, alternatively, it would have been obvious to include an aperture in the housing.
`
`For the former, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner took positions in the ITC
`
`investigation concerning the Vuse Ciro device that purportedly confirm that the
`
`aperture need not be in the housing. Patent Owner, however, is no longer relying on
`
`the Vuse Ciro in the ITC investigation. Regardless, the Vuse Ciro practices this
`
`limitation. For the latter, Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to move the
`
`existing apertures closer to the housing end. But that only puts the aperture closer to
`
`the housing, not in the housing as required.
`
`
`
`Finally, concerning the word count issue, Petitioner does not dispute that the
`
`short-hand characterization would take the word count over the statutory limit. Nor
`
`do any of the cases relied on by Petitioner have the same fact pattern as here.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Does Not Dispute That The Prior Art Fails To Disclose A
`“Housing Having A [First/Second] Aperture”
`The claims recite a “housing having a [first/second] aperture.” Yet, as seen
`
`below, the Petitioner uniformly failed to identify this requirement in any of its prior
`
`art references:
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,881 B1
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s POPR
`
`
`
` Xia (Pet. at 17) Fang (Pet. at 24 (annotated)) Wang (Pet. at 22)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner nonetheless argues that the aperture need not be in the housing
`
`because Patent Owner purportedly takes that position in the ITC investigation
`
`concerning the Vuse Ciro. Reply at 1-2. Patent Owner, however, dropped its reliance
`
`on the Vuse Ciro in the ITC investigation.
`
`
`
`Regardless, the Vuse Ciro includes a housing (i.e., the outer structure of the
`
`device) having an aperture, which can be clearly seen from outside the device. POPR
`
`at 27. Petitioner draws a distinction between the housing and the threaded connector
`
`(Reply at 1); but the threaded connector is part of the housing (i.e., the outer structure
`
`of the device). And even if the threaded connector was not considered part of the
`
`housing, the housing has an aperture to accommodate the threaded connector.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also misstates the Middle District of North Carolina judge’s
`
`holding, which Petitioner suggests permits an internal aperture. Reply at 1-2. There,
`
`the judge determined that, “[a]ir enters through an opening at the base of the positive
`
`pin.” Ex. 1015 at 16. The “opening at the base of the positive pin” is the housing’s
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,881 B1
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s POPR
`
`hole, which can be seen when viewing the exterior of the cartridge, identified by
`
`Patent Owner as the aperture, not some internal gathering point. POPR at 27.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply then resorts to rearguing its obviousness case – suggesting
`
`that it would have been obvious to modify Xia and Wang to have this feature. Reply
`
`at 3. As to Xia, Petitioner cites for support the Pet. at 35-36. But Pet. at 35-36 recites
`
`that Xia’s aperture could be replaced by Wang’s apertures. Pet. at 36 (“it was
`
`obvious to modify Xia’s cartridge to include a passageway through the center of the
`
`solution holding medium as in Wang.” (emphasis added). As the figures above
`
`demonstrate, Wang’s purported apertures are not in the housing but are instead in
`
`the liquid storage medium. Pet. at 36 also suggests it would have been obvious to
`
`“require extension of the passageway to the very edge of the housing, with a central
`
`aperture (already present in Wang and Fang)” (emphasis added). But extending the
`
`structures having the apertures to be closer to the housing ends is not the same as
`
`moving the aperture from these structures to the housing, which is required under
`
`the claims.
`
`
`
`As to Wang, Petitioner cites Pet. at 92 to argue that the Petition argues
`
`obviousness for an aperture in Wang’s housing. The Pet. at 92, however, recites
`
`extending “the solution holding medium and the passageway [to] reach[] to air inlet
`
`106” (emphasis added). Again, the Petition does not suggest moving the aperture to
`
`the housing, but instead, keeping the aperture in the solution-holding medium and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,881 B1
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s POPR
`
`extending the solution-holding medium so that the aperture is closer to the housing
`
`end.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also criticizes Patent Owner for mischaracterizing the Petition.
`
`Reply at 3. Specifically, that certain elements Patent Owner argued would be
`
`removed, would not actually be removed. Tellingly, Petitioner does not, and cannot,
`
`point to the Petition to support this contention. The Petition simply has no discussion
`
`of this and the only figures provided by the Petitioner omit these features. See, e.g.,
`
`Pet. at 44. Petitioner’s resort to its expert declaration to make this point is endemic
`
`of Petitioner’s improper incorporation by reference to support its obviousness
`
`arguments. POPR at 33.
`
`
`
`To be clear, Petitioner failed to identify a first aperture in the housing in any
`
`of its prior art references. Petitioner seemingly overlooked this limitation. The only
`
`apertures identified by the Petitioner are apertures internal to the housing. Petitioner
`
`is using its Reply to repurpose its obviousness arguments that were directed to
`
`bringing its internal apertures closer to the housing end to now include moving the
`
`aperture to the housing end. This is a post facto argument not included in the Petition.
`
`II.
`
`
`Petitioner Exceeded the Word Count
`37 CFR § 42.24 permits an “appendix of exhibits or claim listing.” Petitioner
`
`provided more than a claim listing, it included a short-hand characterization of each
`
`claim limitation. Petitioner relies on Attends Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. Hartmann,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,881 B1
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s POPR
`
`IPR2020-01480, Paper 6 at 5-22 (Nov. 25, 2020); id. Paper 13 at 36 (Feb. 24, 2021);
`
`Tesla, Inc. v. Unicorn Energy GMBH, IPR2022-00110, Paper 19 (Feb. 17, 2022);
`
`and Graco, Inc. v. Daniel Dumitru Dorneanu, IPR2022-00942, Paper 6 at 9 (Oct.
`
`21, 2022). None of these cases includes a short-hand description of the claim
`
`limitations. And in the case of Tesla, the Board required the Petitioner to refile the
`
`petition.
`
`Dated: March 29, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Anish R. Desai
`Anish R. Desai
`(Reg. No. 73,760)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Phone: 212-310-8000
`Fax: 212-310-8007
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,881 B1
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s POPR
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this brief complies with the type-volume
`
`limitations of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 (c)(1). This brief contains 986 words as calculated
`
`by the “Word Count” feature of Microsoft Word 2016, the word processing program
`
`used to create it.
`
`
`
`The undersigned further certifies that this brief complies with the typeface
`
`requirements of 37 CFR § 42.6(a)(2)(ii) and typestyle requirements of 37 CFR §
`
`42.6(a)(2)(iii). This brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface
`
`using Microsoft Word 2010 in Times New Roman 14 point font.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Anish R. Desai
`Anish R. Desai
`(Reg. No. 73,760)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Phone: 212-310-8000
`Fax: 212-310-8007
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Dated: March 29, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,881 B1
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s POPR
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 29, 2024, the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY was served via electronic
`
`mail, upon the following:
`
`William A. Meunier
`Michael T. Renaud
`Adam S. Rizk
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`WAMeunier@mintz.com
`MTRenaud@mintz.com
`ARizk@mintz.com
`
`Reza Dokhanchy
`Michael D Van Loy
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`RDokhanchy@mintz.com
`MDVanLoy@mintz.com
`
`
`
`/Lauren McDuffie/
`Lauren McDuffie
`Senior IP Paralegal
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`lauren.mcduffie@weil.com
`T: 202-682-7000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`