Filed on behalf of Telebrands Corp. by:
`
`Robert T. Maldonado (Reg. No. 38,232)
`Tonia A. Sayour (Reg. No. 58,404)
`Elana B. Araj (Reg. No. 75,804)
`Cooper & Dunham LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, NY 10122
`(212)278-0400
`rmaldonado@cooperdunham.com
`tsayour@cooperdunham.com
`earaj@cooperdunham.com
`
`
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`
`
`
`Eric J. Maurer (Reg. No. 43,782)
`Boies, Schiller, & Flexner LLP
`1401 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 237-2727
`emaurer@bsfllp.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TELEBRANDS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`Issued: June 20, 2017
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-328 AND C.F.R. § 42.200 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .......................... 2
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ....................................... 2
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................. 2
`C. Lead and Back Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................. 5
`D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .......................................... 5
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................. 6
`A. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................... 6
`B. Timing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.202 .................................................................... 6
`C. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ........................................ 7
`IV.
`’789 PATENT BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 7
`A. The ’789 Patent Specification And Prior Art ................................................... 7
`B. Prosecution History Of The ’789 Patent ........................................................ 10
`C. Effective Filing Date Of The ’789 Patent ...................................................... 11
`D. Final Written Decision In PGR2015-00018 ................................................... 13
`E. Institution Decisions In PGR2016-00030 And PGR2016-00031 .................. 13
`V.
`37 C.F.R. §42.204(b)(1)-(2): IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE . 14
`A. Statement of Requested Relief ....................................................................... 14
`B. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art .............................................................. 17
`VI. 37 C.F.R. §42.204(b)(3): CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................. 17
`VII. 37 C.F.R. §42.204(b)(4)-(5): IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT
`CLAIMS 1-23 OF THE ’789 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................... 18
`A. It Is More Likely Than Not That Claims 5, 12 and 13 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) ...................................................................................... 18
`i. Claims 5 and 13 ............................................................................................. 19
`ii. Claim 12 ......................................................................................................... 21
`B. It Is More Likely Than Not That Claims 1-7, 12, 17, and 18 Are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) ................................................................ 24
`i. Claims 1-7 ...................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`ii. Claims 17 and 18 ........................................................................................... 27
`iii. Claim 12 ......................................................................................................... 27
`C. It is More Likely Than Not That Claims 1-23 Of The ’789 Patent Are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §103 .................................................................... 28
`i. Description of the Prior Art ........................................................................... 29
`a.
`Saggio (Ex.1012) .................................................................................. 29
`b. Donaldson (Ex.1014) ............................................................................ 30
`c.
`Cooper (Ex.1030) .................................................................................. 31
`d. Weir (Ex.1016) ...................................................................................... 32
`e.
`Pomeranz (Ex.1032) .............................................................................. 33
`f.
`Zorbz (Exs.1033-1034) ......................................................................... 33
`g. Mead (Ex.1038) .................................................................................... 34
`It Is More Likely Than Not That Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-20, and 22-23
`ii.
`Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §103 As Obvious Over Saggio In View Of
`Donaldson or Mead ............................................................................................... 34
`1. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 .................................................................... 43
` i. Independent Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 43
` ii. Independent Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 52
` iii. Independent Claim 16 .................................................................................... 53
`2. Claims 2, 9, and 19 ......................................................................................... 55
`3. Claims 4 and 11 .............................................................................................. 57
`4. Claims 6 and 14 .............................................................................................. 58
`5. Claims 7, 15, and 23 ....................................................................................... 59
`6. Claims 12 and 20 ............................................................................................ 59
`7. Claims 17 and 18 ............................................................................................ 60
`8. Claim 22 ......................................................................................................... 61
`iii.
`It Is More Likely Than Not That Claims 5 and 13 Are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 As Obvious Over Saggio, Cooper, And Donaldson Or Mead ... 61
`iv.
`It Is More Likely Than Not That Claims 2, 9, 12, and 19-20 Are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §103 As Obvious Over Saggio, Cooper or Weir,
`and Donaldson Or Mead ........................................................................................ 63
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`v.
`It Is More Likely Than Not That Claims 3, 10, and 21 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. §103 As Obvious Over Saggio, Donaldson Or Mead, And
`Pomerantz .............................................................................................................. 66
`vi.
`It Is More Likely Than Not That Claims 3, 10, and 21 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. §103 As Obvious Over (1) Saggio, (2) Donaldson Or Mead, (3)
`Cooper Or Weir, And (4) Pomerantz .................................................................... 68
`vii. It Is More Likely Than Not That Claims 1-23 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. §103 As Obvious Over Zorbz In View Of Donaldson Or Mead .............. 69
`1. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 16 .................................................................... 79
` i. Independent Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 79
` ii. Independent Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 80
` iii. Independent Claim 16 .................................................................................... 81
`2. Claims 2, 9, and 19 ......................................................................................... 82
`3. Claims 3, 10, and 21 ....................................................................................... 83
`4. Claims 4 and 11 .............................................................................................. 84
`5. Claims 5 and 13 .............................................................................................. 85
`6. Claims 6 and 14 .............................................................................................. 85
`7. Claims 7, 15, and 23 ....................................................................................... 85
`8. Claims 12 and 20 ............................................................................................ 86
`9. Claims 17 and 18 ............................................................................................ 86
`10. Claim 22 ......................................................................................................... 87
`D.
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT OVERCOME THE STRONG
`SHOWING OF OBVIOUSNESS ............................................................................ 87
`E.
`THIS PETITION CONTAINS NEW ARGUMENTS NOT PREVIOUSLY
`PRESENTED TO THE USPTO .............................................................................. 88
`F.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 89
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`ABT Systems, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
` 797 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 52
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.,
` 816 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2016). ............................................................................. 91
`
`Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
` 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Auto. Techs. Int’l v. BMW of N. Am., Inc.,
` 501 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB,
` 892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 52
`
`DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v. CH Patrick Co.,
` 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................... 53, 54, 77
`
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC,
` 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 25, 27, 28
`
`In re Packard,
` 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 25
`
`In re Schreiber,
` 128F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997).) ........................................................................... 47
`
`In re Swinehart,
` 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) .................................................................................. 48
`
`Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
` 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 25
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`
`Martin v. Mayer,
` 823 F.2d 500 (Fed.Cir. 1987) ............................................................................... 18
`
`Micron Technology, Inc. v. The Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill.,
` IPR2013-00008, 2013 WL 5970124 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2013) ........................... 92
`
`Noelle v. Lederman,
` 355 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 13
`
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
` 773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 47
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
` 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed.Cir. 2007) ............................................................................. 91
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
` 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed.Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc.,
` 935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 52
`
`The W. Union Co. v. Moneygram Payment Sys., Inc.,
` 626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 29
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
` 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed.Cir. 1991) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
` 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 90
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (2013) ...................................................................................... 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................ 96, 97
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321-328 .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2173.02 (Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015) .......................................................... 25
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(1)-(4) ........................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.200-42.224 ..................................................................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,533,789 (“the ’789 patent”)
`
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 9,242,749 (“the ’749 patent”)
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 9,051,066 (“the ’066 patent”)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 9,315,282 (“the ’282 patent”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 9,527,612 (“the ’612 patent”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 9,533,779 (“the ’779 patent”)
`
`1007 U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/937,083
`
`1008 U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/942,193
`
`1009
`
`File History of the ’789 patent
`
`1010
`
`January 4, 2016 Institution Decision in PGR2015-00018
`
`1011 December 30, 2016 Final Written Decision in PGR2015-00018
`
`1012 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0118640 (“Saggio”)
`
`1013 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0004430 (“Lee”)
`
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,014,757 (“Donaldson”)
`
`1015 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/121309 (“Boise”)
`
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,478,651 (“Weir”)
`
`1017
`
` October 7, 2015 Preliminary Response in PGR2015-00018
`
`1018 November 22, 2016 Preliminary Response in PGR2016-00030
`
`1019
`
`July 12, 2017 Preliminary Response in PGR2017-00015
`
`1020
`
` Transcript of October 14, 2016 Deposition of Dr. Kudrowitz
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1021 Declaration of Dr. Ken Kamrin
`
`1022
`
` Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition of “Line”
`
`1023 February 21, 2017 Institution Decision in PGR2016-00030
`
`1024 February 21, 2017 Institution Decision in PGR2016-00031
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`January 24, 2017 Decision Affirming Preliminary Injunction in Tinnus
`Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. Telebrands Corp., et al., No. 16-1410 (Fed.
`Cir.)
`
`January 24, 2017 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion To Stay in
`Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. Telebrands Corp., et al., No. 6:15-cv-
`00551-RC-JDL (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1027 May 5, 2017 Decision Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`in PGR2016-00030
`
`1028 May 5, 2017 Decision Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`in PGR2016-00031
`
`1029 Answer to Second Amended Complaint and Counterclaims filed in
`Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. Telebrands Corp., Civil Action No.
`6:16-cv-00033-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 5,826,803 (“Cooper”)
`
`1031 Noodlehead Sprinkler
`
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 5,509,540 (“Pomerantz”)
`
`1033 YouTube Video of the Zorbz Replicator, published on August 19, 2014
`
`1034
`
` YouTube webpage of the Zorbz Replicator video
`
`1035
`
` File History of the ’066 patent
`
`1036
`
` ’612 Patent PGR Petition
`
`1037
`
` ’779 Patent PGR Petition
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1038
`
` U.S. Patent No. 600,967 (“Mead”)
`
`1039
`
` U.S. Patent No. 3,580,303 (“Roberge”)
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Telebrands Corp. (“Telebrands”) respectfully requests Post-Grant
`
`Review (“PGR”) of claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789 (“the ’789 patent”),
`
`entitled “System and Method for Filling Containers with Fluids,” which issued June
`
`20, 2017, to Tinnus Enterprises, LLC (“Tinnus”). (Ex.1001.) The ’789 patent is one
`
`patent in a family of six patents owned by Tinnus.1 (Exs.1001-1006.) This is
`
`Petitioner’s sixth petition for PGR of a patent in this family.
`
`The ’789 patent is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,051,066 (“the ’066 patent”) (Ex.1003.) As such, each of the ’789
`
`patent, and the ’066 patent share the same specification and many of the same claim
`
`terms. The ’789 patent also shares the same specification and claim terms with U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,315,282 and U.S. Patent No. 9,242,749, which are continuations of
`
`the ’066 patent. In three separate PGR proceedings, the Board has already
`
`determined that (1) the ’066 patent is unpatentable as indefinite in a Final Decision
`
`(PGR2015-00018; Ex.1011); (2) the ’749 patent is more likely than not unpatentable
`
`as obvious (PGR2016-00030, Ex.1023); and (3) the ’282 patent is more likely than
`
`not unpatentable as obvious and indefinite (PGR2016-00031, Ex.1024.) The ’789
`
`patent is likewise invalid for many of the same reasons. Indeed, the claims of
`
`
`1
`Tinnus also has two pending patent applications that are part of this family.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`the ’789 patent are patentably indistinct from the claims of each of the ’066 patent,
`
`the ’749 patent, and the ’282 patent, which is why Tinnus filed a terminal disclaimer
`
`with respect to each of those patents. (Ex.1009, pp. 105-107.)
`
`In addition to other grounds, Telebrands relies on the same prior art
`
`combinations as the Board relied upon in its decisions to institute the ’066 patent
`
`PGR, the ’749 patent PGR, and the ’282 patent PGR. Furthermore, because the
`
`claims of the ’789 patent include similar functional language as the claims of
`
`the ’066 patent, the ’789 patent suffers from the same indefiniteness defects as
`
`the ’066 Patent. Accordingly, Petitioner submits that it is more likely than not that
`
`claims 1-23 of the ’789 patent are unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies itself, Telebrands
`
`Corp., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, having a
`
`place of business at 79 Two Bridges Road, Fairfield, New Jersey 07004, as the real
`
`party in interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`litigation involving the ’789 patent:
`
`• Telebrands Corp. v. Zuru Ltd., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-04522-CCC-MF
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`
`(D.N.J.) (Tinnus IV).
`
`In addition, Petitioner identifies the following related actions/proceedings:
`
`• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, No. PGR2015-00018, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,051,066 (P.T.A.B.) (“the ’066 Patent PGR”);
`
`• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, No. PGR2016-00030, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,242,749 (P.T.A.B.) (“the ’749 Patent PGR”);
`
`• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, No. PGR2016-00031, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,315,282 (P.T.A.B.) (“the ’282 Patent PGR”);
`
`• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, No. PGR2017-00015, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,527,612 (P.T.A.B.) (“the ’612 Patent PGR”);
`
`• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, No. PGR2017-00024, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,533,779 (P.T.A.B.) (“the ’779 Patent PGR”);
`
`• Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al. v. Telebrands Corporation, Civil Action
`
`No. 6:15-cv-00551-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.) (“Tinnus I”);
`
`• Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. Telebrands Corp., Civil Action No. 6:16-
`
`cv-00033-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.) (“Tinnus II”);
`
`• Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Civil Action
`
`No. 6:16-cv-00034-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.) (“Retailer Action I”);
`
`• Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 6:17-
`
`cv-00361-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.) (“Retailer Action II”);
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`• Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. Telebrands Corp., Civil Action No. 6:17-
`
`cv-00170-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.) (“Tinnus III”);
`
`• Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. Telebrands Corp., et al, No. 16-1410
`
`(Fed. Cir.) (“Tinnus I PI”); and
`
`• Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. Telebrands Corp., No. 17-1175 (Fed.
`
`Cir.) (“Tinnus II PI”).
`
`With respect to the ’066 Patent PGR, on December 30, 2016, the Board issued
`
`its Final Written Decision, concluding that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that all claims of the ’066 Patent are unpatentable as indefinite. A copy
`
`of the Board’s decision is attached as Exhibit 1011. With respect to the ’749 Patent
`
`PGR and the ’282 Patent PGR, on February 21, 2017, in separate decisions, the
`
`Board instituted post-grant review of these two patents. (Exs.1023-1024.) In
`
`addition, on May 5, 2017, the Board denied Tinnus’ requests for rehearing with
`
`respect to the institutions of the ’749 Patent PGR and the ’282 Patent PGR.
`
`(Exs.1027-1028.) With respect to the Tinnus I PI, on January 24, 2017, the Federal
`
`Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction order in Tinnus I under
`
`the highly deferential plain error standard. A copy of the Federal Circuit’s decision
`
`is attached as Exhibit 1025. Further, on January 25, 2017, the district court in Tinnus
`
`I issued an order staying that action pending appeal of the Board’s Final Written
`
`Decision in the ’066 PGR. A copy of that Order is attached as Exhibit 1026. With
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`respect to the Tinnus II PI, the district court’s order is on appeal to the Federal
`
`Circuit.
`
`C. Lead and Back Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3), lead counsel for this Petition is Robert T.
`
`Maldonado (Reg. No. 38,232) of Cooper & Dunham LLP. Back-up counsel for this
`
`Petition is Tonia A. Sayour (Reg. No. 58,404) and Elana B. Araj (Reg. No. 75,804)
`
`of Cooper & Dunham LLP and Eric J. Maurer (Reg. No. 43,782) of Boies, Schiller,
`
`and Flexner LLP. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Petitioner has filed a power of
`
`attorney designating the above-identified counsel.
`
`D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4), service information for the Petition is as
`
`follows:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Robert T. Maldonado
`Cooper & Dunham LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
`New York, New York 10122
`Tel: (212) 278-0509
`Fax: (212) 391-0525
`Email: Rmaldonado@cooperdunham.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Back Up Counsel:
`
`Tonia A. Sayour
`Cooper & Dunham LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
`New York, New York 10122
`Tel: (212) 278-0513
`Fax: (212) 391-0525
`Email: tsayour@cooperdunham.com
`
`Elana B. Araj
`Cooper & Dunham LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
`New York, New York 10122
`Tel: (212) 278-0506
`Fax: (212) 391-0525
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`Email: earaj@cooperdunham.com
`
`Eric J. Maurer
`Boies, Schiller, & Flexner LLP
`1401 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 274-1151
`Fax: (202) 237-6131
`Email: emaurer@bsfllp.com
`
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service at the above-identified email
`
`
`
`addresses.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`A. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15
`
`Petitioner concurrently submits the fees due on filing a petition for PGR. The
`
`fees include (1) the $12,000 PGR request fee; (2) the $18,000 PGR Institution Fee;
`
`and (3) $5,150 additional claims fee2. Authorization is hereby given to charge the
`
`amount of such fees to Deposit Account No. 03-3125.
`
`B. Timing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.202
`
`The ’789 patent issued on June 20, 2017. A petition for PGR must be filed no
`
`later than nine months after the date of the grant of a patent, which is March 20, 2018
`
`for the ’789 patent. Because Petitioner filed this Petition before March 20, 2018,
`
`this Petition is timely filed.
`
`
`2 The number of claims requested for review is twenty-three (23).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`C. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’789 patent is available for PGR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting a PGR challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition. The ’789 Patent claims priority to U.S.
`
`provisional application No. 61/937,083, filed February 7, 2014. (Ex.1001.)
`
`Accordingly, the ’789 patent has an effective filing date that is after March 16, 2013,
`
`and is subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the America Invents Act.
`
`Moreover, as set forth in Section III(B) above, this Petition is filed within nine
`
`months after the date of the grant of the ’789 patent. Accordingly, the ’789 patent
`
`is available for PGR. Furthermore, Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging
`
`the validity of a claim of the ’789 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting a PGR challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this petition.
`
`IV.
`
`’789 PATENT BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’789 Patent Specification And Prior Art
`
`The ’789 patent purports to address the problem of filling “a lot of inflatable
`
`containers” with “fluids, such as air, helium, water, medicines, etc.,” because, for
`
`example, filling balloons “one at a time, and then t[ying] the balloons, . . . can all be
`
`quite time-consuming.” (Ex.1001, 1:24-27, 36-38.)
`
`However, solutions to these problems were already known in the prior art.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`Prior examples of simultaneously filling inflatable containers—such as balloons—
`
`with fluids are illustrated in Exhibits 1012 (Saggio), 1016 (Weir), and 1015 (Boise).
`
`Similarly, inflatable containers that seal after removal from a tube were also known
`
`in the prior art (Ex.1012), including the use of self-sealing O-rings and elastic bands
`
`(Exs.1013-1014; 1038-1039). Indeed, Saggio even discloses simultaneously filling
`
`multiple self-sealing balloons with water. (Ex.1012, Fig. 7.)
`
`Nonetheless, the ’789 patent describes a system that includes a housing, tubes,
`
`containers, and elastic fasteners, such as rubber bands or O-rings. (Ex.1001, FIG.
`
`1.) More specifically, as shown in Figure 1 reproduced below, one end (A) of the
`
`housing (12) connects to a fluid supply tube (14) and the other end (B) of the housing
`
`includes holes with tubes (16) extending therethrough. (Id., 2:36-52.) Containers
`
`(18) may be attached to the tubes (16) by elastic fasteners (20). (Id., 2:53-55.) Fluid,
`
`such as a liquid or gas, may flow through the housing and tubes and into the
`
`containers. (Id., FIG. 1, 2:44-48.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`
`
`
`The ’789 patent recognizes that, regardless of whether containers are filled
`
`with liquids or gases, various elastic fasteners can be used interchangeably —
`
`including such well-known objects as rubber bands and O-rings. (Id., 2:59-3:2, 3:8-
`
`13.) The ’789 patent does not teach how elastic rings or O-rings are specifically
`
`designed and/or configured to achieve the claimed functions of self-sealing and
`
`restricting the containers on tubes so that the containers detach upon exertion of a
`
`certain force. (Ex.1021, ¶17.) The Patent appears to assume that the selection of
`
`appropriate elastic rings or O-rings to achieve these functions was a rudimentary
`
`task.3 (See id.) Indeed, in deposition testimony in the ’066 Patent PGR, the inventor
`
`
`3 Indeed, if it were otherwise, the ’789 patent would be invalid for lack of
`enablement. Auto. Techs. Int’l v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283
`(Fed.Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`testified that he did not design the elastic rings used in his commercial embodiment,
`
`but rather used O-rings that were previously made by others.
`
`The ’789 patent discloses that elastic rings or O-rings hold balloons on tubes
`
`with a “connecting force.” (Ex.1001, 3:60-3:67.) When the balloons have reached
`
`a desired size, the connecting force may be overcome by a force due to: (1) “shaking
`
`housing 12 . . . sufficiently vigorously,” (2) filling the containers so that they fall off
`
`the tubes due to gravity, or (3) pulling the containers off by hand. (Id., 3:64-4:3.)
`
`When the balloons are detached from the tubes, the elastic fastener slides with its
`
`respective container and constricts the neck of the container to close it. (Id., 4:7-9.)
`
`
`
`B. Prosecution History Of The ’789 Patent
`
`The application that issued as the ’789 patent was filed on May 15, 2015 as a
`
`continuation of the application that issued as the now invalid ’066 patent. (Ex.1001).
`
`The ’789 patent identifies two Provisional Applications as Related U.S. Application
`
`Data, filed on February 7, 2014 and February 20, 2014, respectively. (Exs.1001,
`
`1007-1008.)
`
`The as-filed ’789 patent application included 25 claims, with four independent
`
`claims. (Ex.1009, pp.581-584.) After receiving a non-final office action, Tinnus
`
`submitted a Response cancelling claims 1-25 and submitting new claims 26-52.
`
`(Ex.1009, pp.92-96.) New claims 26-52 included three independent claims (26, 34,
`
`and 43). (Id.) Each independent claim, set forth (1) a fitting or housing and (2)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,682,789
`branch assemblies coupled to the fitting, each branch assembly comprising (a) a
`
`tube, (b) a balloon, and (c) a fastener. (Id.) Because these structural elements are
`
`patentably indistinct from, inter alia, the structural elements claimed in the ’066
`
`patent, the ’749 patent, the ’282 patent, the ’612 patent, and the ’779 patent
`
`(Exs.1001-1005), Tinnus filed a terminal disclaimer with respect to each of these
`
`patents. (Ex.1009, pp. 105-107.)
`
`On May 15, 2017, the Examiner issued a notice of allowance, which included
`
`an Examiner’s Amendment, cancelling claims 32, 41, 46