UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00020
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`_______________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,292,138
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 1 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 1 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Precise Relief Requested ................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ............................................... 1
`
`Statutory Grounds.................................................................................. 2
`
`III. The ’138 Patent ................................................................................................ 2
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill .................................................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 5
`
`VI. Brief Overview of Prior Art References ...................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Peisa ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`Lohr ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`Choi ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`Bucknell ................................................................................................. 9
`
`VII. The Board Should Not Exercise Discretion to Deny Institution .............10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Board Need Not Reach the Fintiv Factors Due to Compelling
`Evidence of Unpatentability ................................................................11
`
`The Fintiv Factors Favor Institution ...................................................12
`
`The General Plastic Factors Favor Institution ....................................16
`
`The Advanced Bionics–Becton, Dickinson Factors Favor
`Institution .............................................................................................18
`
`VIII. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Over the Prior Art ......................18
`
`A. Ground 1: Peisa in Combination with Lohr Renders Claims 1–4,
`6–11, 13, and 14 Obvious ....................................................................18
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 8 ...........................................................18
`
`i
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 2 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 2 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`Dependent Claims 2, 9 ..............................................................40
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 10 ............................................................41
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 11 ............................................................42
`
`Dependent Claims 6, 13 ............................................................43
`
`Dependent Claims 7, 14 ............................................................45
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Peisa in Combination with Choi and Bucknell Renders
`Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14 Obvious ...............................................46
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 8 ...........................................................46
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 & 14 .......................................54
`
`Dependent Claims 4 & 11 .........................................................54
`
`Dependent Claims 6, 13 ............................................................55
`
`C. Ground 3: Peisa in Combination with Lohr and Bucknell
`Renders Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14 Obvious .................................56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 8 ...........................................................56
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, & 14 ............................57
`
`Dependent Claims 4 & 11 .........................................................57
`
`IX. Grounds for Standing ..................................................................................58
`
`X. Mandatory Notices.......................................................................................58
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ...........................58
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................58
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................59
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................60
`
`XI. CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) .........................................60
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 3 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 3 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ............................................ 11
`
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`IPR2017-02146, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018) .......................................... 17
`
`Align Tech., Inc., v. 3Shape A/S,
`IPR2021-01313, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2022) .......................................... 13
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, 2020 WL 2126495, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20,
`2020) ................................................................................................. 11, 12, 14, 16
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020) ......................................... 12
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ..................................... 11, 18
`
`Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00680, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2021) .......................................... 16
`
`Coolit Sys., Inc., v. Asetek Danmark A/S,
`IPR2021-01195, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2021) ......................................... 13
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Safe Driving Techs. LLC,
`IPR2021-01446, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. March 14, 2022) ...................................... 14
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, 2017 WL 3917706, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 16
`
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017)..................................... 11, 16
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 4 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 4 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`Illumina, Inc. v. Ravgen, Inc.,
`IPR2021-01271, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2022) .......................................... 17
`
`Micron Technology, Inc., v. Vervain, LLC,
`IPR2021-01550, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. April 11, 2022) ........................................ 14
`
`Netnut Ltd., v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2021-01492, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. March 21, 2022) ................................ 13, 14
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Protect Animals with Satellites LLC, v. OnPoint Sys., LLC,
`IPR2021-01483, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2022) ........................................... 14
`
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, 2020 WL 3273334, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 15
`
`STMicroelectronics, Inc., v. Ocean Semiconductor LLC,
`IPR2021-01349, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. March 4, 2022) ........................................ 14
`
`STMicroelectronics, Inc., v. Optical Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2021-01593, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. March 17, 2022) ........................................ 14
`
`TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. and Hisense Co., Ltd., v.
`Parkervision, Inc.,
`IPR2021- 00990 .................................................................................................. 16
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc., v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00138, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. May 11, 2022) ................................... 15, 16
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLC,
`IPR2018-00548, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2018)............................................. 17
`
`Valve Corporation v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00063, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. April 2, 2019) .......................................... 17
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 5 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 5 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 6 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 6 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138 to Speight
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen Wicker
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Stephen Wicker
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,850,540 to Peisa, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,869,461 to Lohr, et al.
`
`PCT Pub. No. WO2005/034542 to Choi (translation and certification)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,935 to Bucknell, et al.
`
`Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Honda
`Motor Co., Ltd., 2:21-cv-00390 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2022).
`
`Order Granting Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 2:21-cv-00390 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2022).
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio
`Access Network; Radio Interface Protocol Architecture, 3GPP TS 25.301
`v7.0.0 Technical Specification (2006-03)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed in Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et
`al. v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., et al. , No. 3:22-cv-761 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 4,
`2022)
`
`United States District Courts – National Judicial Caseload Profile,
`available https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-
`managementstatistics/2022/03/31-1
`
`Joint Status Report Regarding Venue-Related Discovery, Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., et al. , No. 3:22-cv-761
`(N.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2022)
`
`vi
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 7 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 7 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`
`Description
`
`Order, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2:21-cv-
`00389 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2022) (consolidating Intellectual Ventures I
`LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2:21-cv-00389 (E.D. Tex. filed Oct. 19,
`2021) (Member Case) with Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Honda Motor
`Co., Ltd., 2:21-cv-00390 (E.D. Tex. filed Oct. 19, 2021) (Lead Case)).
`
`PCT Pub. No. WO2005/034542 to Choi (original)
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio
`Access Network; Physical Channels and Mapping of Transport Channels
`Onto Physical Channels (FDD), 3GPP TS 25.211 v7.1.0 Technical
`Specification (2007-03)
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio
`Access Network; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification
`3GPP TS 25.331 v7.0.0 Technical Specification (2006-03)
`
`Exhibit
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 8 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 8 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Honda”)
`
`requests inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,292,138 (“the ’138 patent”), purportedly assigned to Patent Owner
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`The ’138 patent is directed to user equipment (UE), such as a cell phone, that
`
`iteratively selects queued data for transmission. ’138 patent, Abstract. In a “first
`
`iteration,” the UE selects data based on a “priority” of the data in the queue, ensuring
`
`high priority data is transmitted first. Id., 8:44–9:25; 10:48–11:10. In a “second
`
`iteration,” the UE selects data based on a running “backlog” for each queue, ensuring
`
`no queue, even those containing relatively lower-priority data, is starved of
`
`bandwidth. Id., 11:11–38. But, as the prior art described below demonstrates, it was
`
`well-known before May 8, 2006 (the ’138 patent’s earliest claimed priority date) to
`
`implement such iterative selection of queued data for transmission based on the
`
`data’s priority and a running backlog counter.
`
`II.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of
`
`claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14 of the ’138 patent, and the cancellation of those claims
`
`as unpatentable.
`
`1
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 9 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 9 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`Each asserted reference identified in the table below is prior art under pre-AIA
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a), § 102(b), and/or § 102(e).
`
`Prior Art References
`Peisa (Ex. 1005), U.S. Patent No. 6,850,540, issued February 1, 2005 (§§ 102(a),
`(b), (e)).
`
`Lohr (Ex. 1006), U.S. Patent No. 7,869,461, published as PCT Pub.
`No. WO2005/125252 on December 29, 2005 (§§ 102 (a), (e)).
`
`Choi (Ex. 1007), PCT Pub. No. WO2005/034542, published on April 14, 2005 (§§
`102(a), (b)).
`
`Bucknell (Ex. 1008), U.S. Patent No. 7,944,935, filed November 4, 2005
`(§ 102(e)).
`
`Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14 of the ’138 patent are unpatentable under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102 and/or 103 based on the following grounds:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`Peisa in view of Lohr renders obvious claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14.
`
`Peisa in view of Choi and further in view of Bucknell renders obvious claims
`1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14.
`
`Peisa in view of Lohr and further in view of Bucknell renders obvious claims
`1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14.
`
`
`III. THE ’138 PATENT
`
`The application for the ’138 patent was filed on June 9, 2017, as Application
`
`No. 15/618,669 (“the ’669 application”). Ex. 1001. The ’669 application claims
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 10 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 10 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`through a series of continuation applications,
`to Application
`
`priority,
`
`No. 11/430,421, filed on May 8, 2006. Id., 1:8–19.
`
`The ’138 patent describes a UE that uses a “first” and “second” iteration to
`
`select data for transmission from radio bearers. ’138 patent, Abstract. Consistent
`
`with the UMTS environment in which the ’138 patent’s UE operates, the UE
`
`communicates via the Uu interface with a “Node-B (base station)” that in turn
`
`communicates with a “radio network controller (RNC),” which is responsible for
`
`communicating with the core network. Id., 6:28–34, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶ 32. Together
`
`the Node B and RNC form the UMTS Radio Access Network (UTRAN). ’138
`
`patent, 6:12–16, 6:35–36. The iterative scheduling algorithm of the ’138 patent
`
`relies on a running backlog counter for each queue that is incremented by the amount
`
`of data queued for transmission that could not be transmitted in a given iteration due
`
`to bandwidth constraints and restrictions on number of queues serviced. Id., 11:28–
`
`31 (“running_RAAU_delta is the running difference between the number of RAAU
`
`[quanta of physical resources (codes and timeslots)] that would be allocated without
`
`the limitation of the number of queues serviced and the number of RAAU allocated
`
`with the limitation”); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–38. In a first step, resources are allocated
`
`according to a weighted average of the priority level of each input flow (RAAUq).
`
`Id., 10:47–11:10. Then in a second step, the weighting of each input flow is adjusted
`
`using the backlog counter (RAAUq′). Id., 11:11–31.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 11 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 11 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`The resource allocation mechanism of the ’138 patent is iterative in at least
`
`one of two senses: first, in that resources are allocated to queues in two or more
`
`discrete steps, see id., 11:1–10, 12:11–15, Fig. 6 (steps 605, 610, and 665), and
`
`second, in that parameters such as running_RAAU_delta is “determined from the
`
`previous iteration of the algorithm.” Id., 11:32–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 39.
`
`The Challenged Claims require that the UE select data from a plurality of
`
`radio bearers for transmission in a first and second iteration. In the first iteration,
`
`the selection is based on parameters received from the network. In the second
`
`iteration, the selection is based on buffered data for the respective radio bearers.
`
`Claim 1, below, is representative:
`
`A user equipment (UE) comprising:
`
`a processor communicatively coupled to a transmitter and circuitry
`configured to receive; and
`
`the processor is configured to:
`
`cause the circuitry to receive parameters associated with a plurality of
`radio bearers,
`
`determine a plurality of buffer occupancies, wherein each of the
`plurality of buffer occupancies is associated with one or more radio
`bearers of the plurality of radio bearers,
`
`cause the transmitter to transmit a message including the plurality of
`buffer occupancies to a network,
`
`cause the circuitry to receive a single allocation of uplink resources,
`
`select data from the plurality of radio bearers for transmission using the
`single allocation of uplink resources, wherein the selection of the data
`occurs using a first iteration and a second iteration,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 12 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 12 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`wherein in the first iteration, the selection of the data is selected from
`a subset of the plurality of radio bearers based on the received
`parameters,
`
`wherein in the second iteration, the selection of the data is based on
`buffered data for respective radio bearers, and
`
`cause the transmitter to transmit a signal including the selected data.
`
`’138 Patent, 13:59–14:6 (claim 1).1
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the priority date
`
`of the ’138 patent would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as three years of experience in
`
`wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`or other equivalent degree. Ex. 1002 ¶ 28. Additional education could substitute for
`
`professional experience and vice versa. Id.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Board construes claims in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) and
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claims need only
`
`be construed to the extent necessary to resolve a controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here,
`
`no terms need construction because the claims read on the asserted prior art under
`
`any construction consistent with Phillips.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis has been added.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 13 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 13 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`VI. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Peisa
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,850,540 to Janne Johannes Peisa, et al. (“Peisa”) was filed
`
`on October 27, 2000, and issued on February 1, 2005. Peisa, Cover. Peisa relates
`
`to methods and systems for packet scheduling
`
`in a Universal Mobile
`
`Telecommunications System (UMTS), commonly known as part of the “3G”
`
`standard. Id., Abstract; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46–48. Peisa discloses methods and systems
`
`that are adapted for use in the UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN),
`
`which is described in Technical Specification (TS) 25.401 (1999-09) of the 3rd
`
`Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), which Peisa incorporates by reference in its
`
`entirety. Peisa, 1:64–2:16. Peisa discloses various embodiments of iterative packet
`
`scheduling algorithms including those in which, like the ’138 patent, a “backlog
`
`counter … keeps track of the backlog of unsent data for a given input flow.” Id.,
`
`9:3–6. In particular, Peisa discloses “a two-step scheduling process in a scheduler
`
`735 located in the MAC layer,” which can be located in “the UE.” Id., 18:9–18. As
`
`Figures 4 and 6 show, after allocating bandwidth to input flows in a first iteration
`
`based on each input flow’s “fair share”—which is based on weighting parameters
`
`such as QoS—Peisa’s algorithm updates the backlog counters so they may be taken
`
`into account in subsequent iterations of the scheduling algorithm. Id., 9:8–30.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 14 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 14 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Figure 4
`
`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`Figure 6
`
`
`
`Id., Figs. 4, 6.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 15 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 15 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`B.
`
`Lohr
`
`U.S. Patent 7,869,461 to Joachim Lohr, et al. (“Lohr”) was filed as PCT
`
`Application No. EP2005/006361 on June 14, 2005, and published as PCT
`
`Publication No. WO2005/125252 on December 29, 2005. Lohr, Cover. Lohr relates
`
`to methods for transmitting data from a mobile terminal to a radio access network
`
`based on the “scheduling mode” of radio bearers associated with logical channels.
`
`Id., Abstract. Lohr describes methods for use in the UMTS standard and subsequent
`
`releases promulgated by 3GPP. Id., 1:26–32. In disclosures related to packet
`
`scheduling in such systems, Lohr teaches that the network controls the “maximum
`
`rate” a UE can transmit in the uplink during a time interval, and relays this
`
`information through messages between the network and the UE. Id., 2:41–61. Such
`
`messages include a “grant message” and “Scheduling Assignment (SA).” Id., 5:17–
`
`21.
`
`C. Choi
`
`PCT Publication No. WO2005/034542 (“Choi”) was published on April 14,
`
`2005. Choi, Cover. Choi relates to methods and systems for transmission and
`
`reception of data according to the UMTS standard. Id., Abstract. Choi describes a
`
`system in which a Radio Resource Control (RRC) entity within the Radio Network
`
`Control (RNC) entity is responsible for the control and allocation of uplink resources
`
`for UEs. Id. at 1. In one embodiment, Buffer Status Control and Buffer Status
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 16 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 16 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`Report messages are used to exchange information between the network and UEs
`
`concerning the buffer occupancies of radio bearers or logical channels. Id. at 16.
`
`D. Bucknell
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,944,935 to Paul Bucknell, et al. (“Bucknell”) was filed as
`
`PCT Application No. IB2005/053618 on November 4, 2005. Bucknell, Cover.
`
`Bucknell relates to methods of multiplexing data packets in mobile communication
`
`systems such as UMTS. Id., 1:4–11. In an embodiment, data is iteratively selected
`
`for transmission from multiple queues in a first portion and a second portion. Id.,
`
`3:56–4:4. As Figure 3 shows, in either the first or second portion, data may be
`
`selected from queues based on parameters such as priority or QoS, or the length of
`
`the queue. Id., 4:5–5:24.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 17 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 17 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 3.
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE DISCRETION TO DENY
`INSTITUTION
`
`IV asserted the ’138 patent against Petitioners in Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`
`v. Honda Motor Co., No. 22-cv-00761 (N.D. Tex., filed Apr. 4, 2022) (the “related
`
`litigation”).2 IV has separately asserted the ’138 patent against GM in WDTX (“the
`
`
`2 The ’138 patent was previously asserted against Petitioner in Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC v. Honda Motor Co., No. 21-cv-00390 (E.D. Tex., filed Oct. 19,
`2021). Patent Owner voluntarily dismissed Petitioner from that case. Ex. 1009;
`Ex. 1010.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 18 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 18 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`GM litigation”), and Toyota in EDTX (“the Toyota litigation”). As explained below,
`
`the Board should not exercise discretion to deny institution because this Petition
`
`presents compelling evidence of unpatentability, and, in the alternative, the most
`
`salient factors demonstrate that the Board should not deny institution of this Petition
`
`under Sections 314(a) or 325(d). See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, 2020
`
`WL 2126495, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”); Advanced
`
`Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469,
`
`Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”); Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec.
`
`15, 2017) (precedential) (“Becton, Dickinson”); General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
`
`v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017).
`
`A. The Board Need Not Reach the Fintiv Factors Due to Compelling
`Evidence of Unpatentability
`
`In a June 21, 2022, Memorandum to the Board, the Director of the USPTO
`
`clarified that the Board “will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny
`
`institution … where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability,” i.e.,
`
`evidence that, “if unrebutted at trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or
`
`more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” USPTO Interim
`
`Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel
`
`District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Fintiv Memorandum”), at 2, 4. As
`
`explained in Section VIII, this Petition meets that criteria.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 19 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 19 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`
`B.
`
`The Fintiv Factors Favor Institution
`
`To the extent the Board finds it necessary to analyze the Fintiv factors, for the
`
`reasons explained below the Board should not exercise discretion to deny institution.
`
`Factor 1 (existence or likelihood of a stay if proceeding is instituted): The
`
`related litigation is in its early stages. Petitioners filed a Motion to Transfer Venue
`
`to the Central District of California, which remains pending. Ex. 1014. Where, as
`
`here, a stay on the basis of parallel IPR proceedings has been neither requested nor
`
`granted, “[t]his factor does not weigh for or against discretionary denial.” Apple Inc.
`
`v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15, at *12 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020). Thus,
`
`Factor 1 is neutral.
`
`Factor 2 (proximity of trial date to statutory IPR deadline): IV filed the
`
`complaint in the related litigation on April 4, 2022. Ex. 1012. As of this Petition,
`
`the related litigation has no trial date. By any calculation, the Board will issue its
`
`final written decision prior to a realistic trial date.3 Based on the most recent
`
`available statistics from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the median
`
`time from filing to trial in civil cases in the Northern District of Texas is 25.1 months
`
`(Ex. 1013, at 34), placing trial in May 2024—i.e., after the Board’s anticipated
`
`
`3 The Director recently clarified that in weighing Fintiv Factor 2 the Board may
`consider “evidence regarding the most recent statistics on median time-to-trial
`for civil actions in the district court in which the parallel litigation resides.”
`Fintiv Memorandum, at 8–9.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 20 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 20 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`statutory deadline for final written decision. Moreover, nearly half of all civil cases
`
`in the district have been pending for over three years, suggesting that a May 2024
`
`trial date is conservative. Finally, based on the parties’ jointly proposed schedule to
`
`resolve the Motion to Transfer Venue, that motion will not be ripe for resolution until
`
`after October 13, 2022. Ex. 1014. Accordingly, the Board would almost certainly
`
`issue a final written decision in this proceeding several months before any scheduled
`
`trial date, even if the court disposed of the pending Motion to Transfer Venue and
`
`entered a case schedule immediately after briefing concluded. Factor 2 thus weighs
`
`strongly against the Board exercising discretion to deny institution.
`
`To the extent the Board considers trial dates of related matters other than those
`
`involving Petitioner, the Board should still not deny institution. The GM and Toyota
`
`litigations commenced October 19, 2021. See Section X.B. Although both
`
`litigations have trials scheduled for July 2023, time-to-trial statistics indicate that
`
`anticipated trial dates could be as late as October 2023 to January 2024. Ex. 1013,
`
`at 35, 37. Trial dates are not determinative, however, but are instead weighed along
`
`with the other factors. Netnut Ltd., v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01492, Paper 12,
`
`at *9–16 (P.T.A.B. March 21, 2022) (instituting review with related litigation trial
`
`date six months before final written decision deadline); Coolit Sys., Inc., v. Asetek
`
`Danmark A/S, IPR2021-01195, Paper 10, at *11, 14 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2021) (same
`
`by five months); Align Tech., Inc., v. 3Shape A/S, IPR2021-01313, Paper 11, at *16–
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 21 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 21 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138
`19 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2022) (four months), STMicroelectronics, Inc., v. Ocean
`
`Semiconductor LLC, IPR2021-01349, Paper 13, at *10, 13 (P.T.A.B. March 4, 2022)
`
`(three months); STMicroelectronics, Inc., v. Optical Licensing, LLC, IPR2021-
`
`01593, Paper 9, at *12–17 (P.T.A.B. March 17, 2022) (same); Micron Technology,
`
`Inc., v. Vervain, LLC, IPR2021-01550, Paper 11, at *9–13 (P.T.A.B. April 11, 2022)
`
`(same). Accordingly, the possibility that the GM or Toyota litigation could go to
`
`trial a few months prior to the expected final written decision in this proceeding
`
`should not weigh against institution.
`
`Factor 3 (investment in parallel proceeding by court and parties): The
`
`court in the related litigation has yet to issue any substantive orders relating to the
`
`’138 patent, and thus the investment in the parallel district court proceeding is
`
`minimal. Given the early stage of the case and the parties’ agreement to stay non-
`
`venue deadlines, there has been essentially no investment in substantive issues, such
`
`as claim construction or exchange of substantive contentions regarding infringement
`
`or validity. And with non-venue work expected to commence no earlier than October
`
`2022, it is unlikely that the court and the parties will have incurred more than
`
`nominal investment regarding the validity of the ’138 patent by the time of
`
`institution. Protect Animals with Satellites LLC, v. OnPoint Sys., LLC, IPR2021-
`
`01483, Paper 11, at *14–15 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2022); Fintiv at 9–10; Netnut, Paper
`
`12 at 11; Ford Motor Co. v. Safe Driving Techs. LLC, IPR2021-01446, Paper 11, at
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`Ex.1021 / Page 22 of 70Ex.1021 / Page 22 of 70
`
`TESLA, INC.TESLA, INC.
`
`

`

`Int