UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE(cid:3)
`(cid:3)
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD(cid:3)
`(cid:3)
`_______________
`
`DEVELOPMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (cid:3)
`Petitioner,
`
`v .
`
`
`E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,(cid:3)
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________
`
`Case PGR2018-00102
`
`Patent No. 9,848,543
`
` (cid:3)
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND MANDATORY NOTICES(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD(cid:3)
`(cid:3)
`_______________
`
`DEVELOPMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (cid:3)
`Petitioner,
`
`v .
`
`
`E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,(cid:3)
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________
`
`Case PGR2018-00102
`
`Patent No. 9,848,543
`
` (cid:3)
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND MANDATORY NOTICES(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Mandatory Notices
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………….………………………………...3
`
`I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………...4
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED…………………….…………………………………..4
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL
`
`FACTS….…….…………….…..……………5
`
`IV. BASIS FOR RELIEF…………………………………………….……………6
`
`A.
`
`The Board Provides Liberal leave to add Real Parties in
`
`Interest…………………………………………………..6
`
`B.
`
`Addition of RDI as a Real Party in Interest is Proper Because Naming RDI
`
`Does Not Create a Statutory Bar Under 35 USC § 325(a)(1)………………7
`
`C. Manner of Relief Requested is Proper….………………………………………7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF PAGE COUNT……………………………………………….9
`
`SIGNATURES……………………………………………………………………10
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………………………………………11
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., Case PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (Feb. 14,
`
`2019) (designated: Apr. 16,
`
`2019)……………………………………………………..……….6
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corporation, 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018)…………………………………………………………………………………… 4,7
`
`Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Case IPR2017-01917,
`
`Paper 86 (Feb. 13, 2019) (designated: Apr. 16, 2019)………………………….6, 7, 8
`
`Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., Case IPR2017-00651, Paper
`
`152 (Jan. 24, 2019) (designated: Apr. 16, 2019)………………………….…… 4, 6, 7
`
`Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2018)………..………… 4
`
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 Relation to Other Proceedings or Actions………………… 6, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 322 Petitions……………………………………………………… 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 Relation to Other Proceedings or Actions…………… 4, 6, 7, 8
`
`
`
`RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 Mandatory Notices…………………………………………. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The PTAB recently designated three cases as having precedential effect
`
`related to Real Parties in Interest (RPI’s) in America Invents Act (AIA) cases.
`
`Those cases are informed by recent guidance from the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am.,
`
`Inc., Case IPR2017-00651, Paper 152 (Jan. 24, 2019) (citing Applications in
`
`Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corporation, 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and
`
`Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Consistent
`
`with that recent guidance and pursuant to the initial case conference conducted
`
`between the Board and parties on June 17, 2019, Petitioner seeks to update its
`
`Mandatory Notices herein.
`
`
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
` This Motion to Amend Mandatory Notices (“Motion”) seeks to amend
`
`Petitioner’s Mandatory Notices: (i) by adding Responsive Drip Irrigation, LLC
`
`(“RDI”) as a Real Party in Interest (“RPI”); (ii) without representing RDI is in fact
`
`an RPI; (iii) RDI agreeing to be bound by 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)’s estoppel provisions
`
`to the same extent that Petitioner will be; (iv) this amendment not altering the
`
`petition filing date.
`
`
`
`This Honorable Board should grant the relief requested above in view of the
`
`following Statement of Material Facts and Basis for Relief.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont” or Patent Owner") is the
`
`owner of record in this proceeding of U.S. Patent No. 9,848,543 (“the ’543
`
`patent”).
`
`2. Petitioner Developmental Technologies, LLC (“DTL”) filed a petition for post
`
`grant review of claims 1-18 of the ‘543 patent, together with Petitioner’s
`
`Mandatory Notices, on September 25, 2018. Paper 1.
`
`3. DuPont submitted its Mandatory Notices on October 30, 2018. Paper 4.
`
`4. Neither DTL nor DuPont have identified any U.S. District Court case or other
`
`proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office related to the ‘543
`
`patent. Papers 1 and 4.
`
`5. On April 16, 2019, the Board designated three decisions as having precedential
`
`effect on the issue of updating Mandatory Notices to add a Real Party in
`
`Interest: Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., Case PGR2019-00001 (“Adello”);
`
`Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Case IPR2017-01917
`
`(“Proppant”); and Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., Case
`
`IPR2017-00651 (“Ventex”). (each identified as precedential at
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`
`board/precedential-informative-decisions).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. BASIS FOR RELIEF
`
`A.
`
`The Board Provides Liberal leave to add Real Parties in Interest
`
`
`
`A petitioner requesting post-grant review of an AIA patent is required to
`
`name all Real Parties in Interest (RPI’s) in its petition. 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(2); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). The PTAB has permitted updates to RPI disclosures in AIA
`
`cases, holding that RPI disclosures relate to statutory bar and estoppel provisions
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (for IPR’s) and 35 U.S.C. § 325 (for PGR’s) rather than a
`
`jurisdictional requirement. Proppant (denying patent owner’s motion to terminate
`
`IPR where petitioner updated its RPI disclosure after institution); Adello (granting
`
`PGR petitioner’s motion to amend mandatory notices with an additional RPI, with
`
`the filing date of the petition remaining unchanged by such amendment). The
`
`Board therefore has the authority to grant the relief requested by this Motion. A
`
`primary consideration in that grant is whether the addition of an RPI would bar the
`
`associated AIA proceeding.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Addition of RDI as a Real Party in Interest is Proper Because Naming RDI
`
`Does Not Create a Statutory Bar Under 35 USC § 325(a)(1)
`
`
`
`Amending Mandatory Notices to add a new Real Party in Interest (RPI)
`
`would not be proper in instances where an AIA proceeding is time-barred based on
`
`related civil actions involving the new RPI. Ventex. This PGR is not time-barred
`
`(under 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1)) due to any related civil action involving RDI or any
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`other party. This fact is supported by Patent Owner’s Mandatory Disclosure.
`
`Paper 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Manner of Relief Requested is Proper
`
`
`
`When assessing whether a party is a Real Party in Interest for the application
`
`of statutory bar and estoppel provisions, courts consider facts related to: a) the
`
`nature of party relationships; and b) whether a party would receive a specific (more
`
`than generalized) benefit from patent invalidation. Applications in Internet Time,
`
`LLC v. RPX Corporation, 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Under PTAB
`
`precedent, however, RPIs can be added to an instituted AIA case without the
`
`necessity for any representations concerning such facts and circumstances. See,
`
`e.g., Proppant, at pp. 14-15 (providing citations to other instances of approval).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner is not representing that RDI has sufficient ties with
`
`Petitioner or that RDI would enjoy sufficient benefit from invalidation of the ‘543
`
`patent to require RDI to be designated as a Real Party in Interest in this PGR.
`
`Petitioner instead seeks to identify RDI as a Real Party in Interest (RPI) for
`
`purposes of this proceeding as a prudential matter, without representing that RDI
`
`is, in fact, an RPI.
`
`
`
`Petitioner notes that adding RDI as a Real Party in Interest potentially
`
`benefits Patent Owner because RDI will also be bound by the estoppel provisions
`
`of 35 USC § 325(e)(1) and (2). Upon approval of this motion and subsequent
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`amendment of Mandatory Notices, Petitioner’s RPI’s will be: i) Developmental
`
`Technologies, LLC (“DTL”) and ii) Responsive Drip Irrigation, LLC (“RDI”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF PAGE COUNT
`
`I hereby certify that this meets the required page count limit of 15 pages
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(v).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Scott D. Balderston/
`Scott D. Balderston(cid:3)
`Reg. No. 35,436
`
`(cid:3) D
`
`ate: June 21, 2019
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SIGNATURES
`
`
`Date: June 21, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Scott D. Balderston/
`Scott D. Balderston
`Registration No. 35,436(cid:3)
`sbalderston@symbus.com
`Phone: (703)869-2716
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Steven R. Olsen/
`Steven R. Olsen
`Registration No. 48,174(cid:3)
`solsen@sroPatent.com
`Phone: (352)586-6628
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner,(cid:3)
`
`Developmental Technologies, LLC.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the attached Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Mandatory
`
`Notices was provided via email correspondence to: Stephen J. Gombita
`
`(stephen.j.gombita@dupont.com) and Steven C. Benjamin
`
`(steven.c.benjamin@dupont.com).
`
`
`
`Date: June 21, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Scott D. Balderston/
`Scott D. Balderston
`Registration No. 35,436(cid:3)
`
`
`11
`
`
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
