UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` SUPERCELL OY,
` Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
` GREE, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2020-00088
`U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.207
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`The Petition Should Be Denied Under § 324(a). ............................................. 3
`A.
`Factor 1: whether the court granted a stay or evidence
`exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is
`instituted ................................................................................................ 8
`Factor 2: proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision ..................... 10
`Factor 3: investment in the parallel proceeding by the
`court and the parties ............................................................................ 16
`Factor 4: overlap between issues raised in the petition
`and in the parallel proceeding ............................................................. 21
`Factor 5: whether the petitioner and the defendant in the
`parallel proceeding are the same party ................................................ 31
`Factor 6: other circumstances that impact the Board’s
`exercise of discretion, including the merits......................................... 31
`G. Holistic Analysis of Fintiv Factors ..................................................... 35
`III. Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated a Reasonable Likelihood of
`Success for the Grounds Advanced in the Petition. ...................................... 39
`A.
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated a Reasonable
`Likelihood of Success for Ground 1 (Patent Eligibility) .................... 39
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated a Reasonable
`Likelihood of Success for Ground 2 (Obviousness) ........................... 44
`i.
`Petitioner Has Failed to Establish That Master
`Hearthstone Is a Printed Publication. ........................................ 45
`ii. Master Hearthstone Does Not Disclose Nor
`Suggest All of the Limitations of the Challenged
`Claims. ...................................................................................... 56
`i
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`B.
`
`

`

`iii.
`
`Petitioner’s Alleged Motivation to Combine
`Master Hearthstone and Gilson Is Insufficient. ........................ 59
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 64
`
`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) ................................... 13, 32
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Grecia,
`IPR2018-00418, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. June 21, 2018) .............................. 52, 53, 55
`Adobe Systems Inc. v. Grecia,
`IPR2018-00418, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 7, 2018).............................................52
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Freshub, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01145, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2021) ..........................................12
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Vocalife LLC,
`IPR2020-00864, Paper 22 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020) ............................. 11, 18, 30
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ................................. passim
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020) ................................. passim
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00203, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. July 6, 2020) ......................... 11, 29, 30, 35
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00407, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2020) .........................................15
`Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC,
`IPR2020-00465, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2020).................................. 29, 30
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................... 46, 47, 51, 53
`Bumble Bee Foods, LLC v. Kowalski,
`IPR2014-00224, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. June 5, 2014) ...........................................63
`Celltrion, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01230, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct 12, 2017) ........................ 49, 51, 52, 53
`iii
`
`

`

`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00800, -00801, -00802, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22,
`2010) ........................................................................................................... passim
`Edwards Lifesciences v. Evalve, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01479, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2020) ..................................... 11, 27
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2019) .........................................17
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017).........................................4, 5
`Google LLC v. IPA Techs. Inc.,
`IPR2018-00384, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. July 3, 2018) ...................................... passim
`Google LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLC,
`IPR2020-00719, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2020) .................................. 10, 13
`Guardian Alliance Techs., Inc. v. Miller,
`IPR2020-00031, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2020) .................................. 53, 55
`Guardian Alliance Techs., Inc. v. Miller,
`IPR2020-00031, Paper 27 (P.T.A.B. July 27, 2020) ..........................................47
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) ................................. passim
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................47
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................62
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 44, 60
`Intel Corporation v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00106, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. May 5, 2020) .............................. 11, 23, 24
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00113, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 19, 2020) .........................................26
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2014)........................ 61, 62, 63, 64
`Kingston Tech. Co., Inc. v. Memory Techs., LLC,
`IPR2019-00654, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2019) .............................. 49, 50, 54
`Kranos Corporation v. Apalone, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00501, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. July 16, 2020) .................................. passim
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................... 44, 59, 60
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 40, 41, 43
`Next Caller Inc. v. TrustID, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00961, -00962, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) ..................... 19, 27
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018)................................... passim
`Nintendo Co., Ltd. v. Gamevice, Inc.,
`IPR2020-001197, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021) .......................................... 9
`Philip Morris Products, S.A. v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00919, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2020) ........................ 30, 31, 37, 38
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC,
`IPR2017-01975, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2008) ...........................................48
`Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp.,
`No. 6:15-CV-463-RWS-JDL, 2016 WL 9340796 (E.D. Tex. Nov.
`29, 2016) ............................................................................................................... 9
`RetailMeNot, Inc. v. Honey Science Corp.,
`PGR2019-00060, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2020) ................................ 40, 43
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..........................................................................64
`Saint Lawrence Commc’ns LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 2:15-CV-349-JRG, 2016 WL 7338600 (E.D. Tex. July 15,
`2016) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`v
`
`

`

`Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2020-01184, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2021) ............................... 12, 15, 19
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.,
`929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..........................................................................46
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Gr.,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2020) .................................... 13, 33
`Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................ 60, 61, 63
`Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp.,
`81 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................... 62, 64
`Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co. v. iRobot Corp.,
`IPR2017-02133, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018) .................................... 52, 53
`SK Innovation Co. v. LG Chem, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01239, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021) ............................................ 9
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................47
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00215, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2020) ................................. passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00310, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2020) ................................. passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00513, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. June 24, 2020) ................................. passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00034, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2020) ................................. passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00038, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2020) ................................. passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00039, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 14, 2020) ............................... passim
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00041, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 14, 2020) ............................... passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00043, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020) ................................ passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00046, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2020) .................................. passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00049, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2020) ................................ passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00053, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2020) .................................. passim
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00063, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2020) ................................ 40, 42
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.,
`PGR2019-00048, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2019) ......................................... 6
`Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2020-00043, Paper 30 (P.T.A.B. May 4, 2020) .................................... 11, 24
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) .........................................................................................8, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ...................................................................................................19
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................................................................................ 3, 39, 42
`
`vii
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`Description
`Third Amended Docket Control Order, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell
`Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00413, Document 98 (E.D. Tex.
`Dec. 30, 2020)
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`Complaint, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-
`00413, Document 1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2019)
`
`Defendant Supercell Oy’s Preliminary Ineligibility Contentions,
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00413 (E.D.
`Tex.), dated June 1, 2020
`
`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-00413 (E.D. Tex.), dated June 1, 2020
`
`Exhibit A-4 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-00413 (E.D. Tex.),
`dated June 1, 2020
`
`Excerpts of the Expert Report of Stacy Friedman, GREE, Inc. v.
`Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00413 (E.D. Tex.), dated
`December 23, 2020
`
`Buehler, Katie, ‘Clash of Clans’ Game Maker Owes $8.5M, Texas
`Jury Says, Law360 (September 18, 2020)
`
`Order, Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al., Civil
`Action No. 2:19-cv-001520, Document 302 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20,
`2020)
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, GREE, Inc.
`v. Supercell Oy, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00413, Document 85
`(E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2020)
`
`Notice of Hearing, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Civil Action No.
`2:19-cv-00413 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2021)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`This Petition should be denied. First, the Board should exercise its discretion
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to deny the Petition because Petitioner raises substantially
`
`the same arguments and prior art in a parallel district court proceeding filed more
`
`than one year ago and scheduled for trial in less than four months (May 10, 2021).
`
`See NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, at 19–
`
`20 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); accord Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential).
`
`Indeed, over the past several months the Board denied institution on eleven
`
`different petitions filed by this same Petitioner against this same Patent Owner in
`
`view of similar circumstances. Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., IPR2020-00215, Paper
`
`10, at 6–19 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2020); Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., IPR2020-00310,
`
`Paper 13, at 6–20 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2020); Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`00513, Paper 11, at 5–18 (P.T.A.B. June 24, 2020); Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc.,
`
`PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at 5–26 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2020); Supercell Oy v. GREE,
`
`Inc., PGR2020-00038, Paper 14, at 5–29 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2020); Supercell Oy v.
`
`GREE, Inc., PGR2020-00039, Paper 14, at 5–27 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 14, 2020);
`
`Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., PGR2020-00041, Paper 14, at 5–25 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 14,
`
`2020); Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., PGR2020-00043, Paper 13, at 5–19 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Oct. 14, 2020); Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., PGR2020-00046, Paper 13, at 5–27
`
`

`

`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2020); Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., PGR2020-00049, Paper 14, at
`
`5–22 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2020); Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc., PGR2020-00053, Paper
`
`12, at 5–25 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2020).
`
`Like those cases, here the district court will have addressed substantially the
`
`same issues raised in the Petition long before this Board has the opportunity to do
`
`so. Indeed, the district court proceeding is already at an advanced state, and a jury
`
`trial is set to begin on May 10, 2021—more than eleven months before the Board
`
`would be statutorily required to issue a final written decision in this proceeding. And
`
`even if the trial date were to be moved by a few months due to any complications
`
`associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial would still occur several months
`
`before the deadline for the Board to issue a final written decision in this proceeding.
`
`Pursuant to NHK Spring, and on a balancing of the Fintiv factors, it would be
`
`an inefficient use of Board, party, and judicial resources to institute the present
`
`proceeding under these circumstances. Indeed, the possibility of duplication of
`
`efforts here is high, as is the potential for inconsistent results, due to both tribunals
`
`considering substantially the same issues. See, e.g., Supercell, IPR2020-00215,
`
`Paper 10, at 18; Supercell, IPR2020-00310, Paper 13, at 19; Supercell, IPR2020-
`
`00513, Paper 11, at 17–18; Supercell, PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at 26; Supercell,
`
`PGR2020-00038, Paper 14, at 28; Supercell, PGR2020-00039, Paper 14, at 26–27;
`
`Supercell, PGR2020-00041, Paper 14, at 25; Supercell, PGR2020-00043, Paper 13,
`
`2
`
`

`

`at 18; Supercell, PGR2020-00046, Paper 13, at 24; Supercell, PGR2020-00049,
`
`Paper 14, at 22; Supercell, PGR2020-00053, Paper 12, at 25.
`
`Second, even if the Board declines to exercise its discretion, the instant
`
`Petition should be denied because it fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`
`any of the challenged claims is unpatentable. For example, the patent eligibility of
`
`the challenged claims under § 101 has already been confirmed during original
`
`prosecution, and discretionary denial under § 325(d) is thus appropriate. And with
`
`respect to Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate
`
`that one of the asserted references is in fact prior art. Moreover, in any event, the
`
`asserted prior art references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest limitations of the
`
`challenged claims. Petitioner’s alleged motivation to combine the asserted
`
`references is also insufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden and should be rejected for
`
`several reasons. For all these reasons, the Petition should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`The Petition Should Be Denied Under § 324(a).
`Institution of post grant review is discretionary with the Director of the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (“The Director may not
`
`authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines … that
`
`it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is
`
`unpatentable.”). It is thus well established that the Board has discretion regarding
`
`whether to institute trial under § 324(a). See id.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Here, the Board should exercise its discretion under § 324(a) and deny the
`
`Petition because institution of this proceeding would not be consistent with the
`
`objective of the AIA to “provide an effective and efficient alternative to district court
`
`litigation.” NHK Spring, IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, at 20 (emphasis added) (quoting
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19,
`
`at 16–17 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential)).
`
`In the precedential NHK Spring decision, the Board exercised discretion under
`
`§ 314(a) to deny a petition upon determining that institution would be an “inefficient
`
`use of Board resources.” IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, at 19–20. The Board determined
`
`that denial of institution was appropriate in view of a parallel district court
`
`proceeding—involving the same patent, the same parties, and “the same prior art
`
`and arguments”—which was scheduled to be completed before a final written
`
`decision would be due in the Board proceeding. Id. In particular, a jury trial was set
`
`to begin in the parallel district court proceeding approximately six months before the
`
`trial before the Board “on the same asserted prior art” would conclude. Id. The Board
`
`determined that the circumstances supported denial of the petition under § 314(a),
`
`considering the AIA’s objective “to provide an effective and efficient alternative to
`
`district court litigation.” Id. at 20.
`
`Thus, pursuant to NHK Spring, “a parallel proceeding in an advanced state
`
`implicates considerations of efficiency and fairness, which can serve as an
`
`4
`
`

`

`independent reason to apply discretion to deny institution.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15, at 11 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020). Indeed, in NHK Spring,
`
`the Board held that the state of a parallel district court proceeding may be an
`
`additional factor (beyond those identified in General Plastic) that weighs in favor of
`
`denying a petition under § 314(a). NHK Spring, IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, at 20.
`
`While the precedential NHK Spring decision expressly concerns the Board’s
`
`discretion under § 314(a), it applies equally to § 324(a) because both statutes include
`
`the statement “[t]he Director may not authorize …,” which is the basis of the Board’s
`
`discretionary authority in each. See, e.g., Supercell, PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at
`
`7. Additionally, “the [same] overall policy justifications associated with the exercise
`
`of discretion—inefficiency, duplication of effort, and the risk of inconsistent
`
`results—apply to post-grant review proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).” Id.
`
`And, in fact, the Board has previously applied the NHK Spring analysis in
`
`determining whether to exercise the Board’s discretion under § 324(a) to deny
`
`institution of post grant review. See, e.g., Supercell, PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at
`
`5–26; Supercell, PGR2020-00038, Paper 14, at 5–29; Supercell, PGR2020-00039,
`
`Paper 14, at 5–27; Supercell, PGR2020-00041, Paper 14, at 5–25; Supercell,
`
`PGR2020-00043, Paper 13, at 5–19; Supercell, PGR2020-00046, Paper 13, at 5–27;
`
`Supercell, PGR2020-00049, Paper 14, at 5–22; Supercell, PGR2020-00053, Paper
`
`5
`
`

`

`12, at 5–25; see also Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.,
`
`PGR2019-00048, Paper 19, at 8–12 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2019).
`
`Here, like in NHK Spring, there exists here a parallel district court proceeding
`
`between the same parties (Petitioner and Patent Owner) regarding the same subject
`
`patent: GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00413 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 31,
`
`2019). See, e.g., Ex. 2002. And the advanced state of that parallel district court
`
`proceeding favors denial of the Petition. In fact, a jury trial regarding the validity of
`
`the subject patent is currently set to begin on May 10, 2021 (Ex. 2010; see Ex. 2001,
`
`at 1), while trial before the Board on substantially the same prior art and arguments
`
`will not conclude until April 2022—eleven months later. As such, the jury trial will
`
`conclude long before any final written decision in this proceeding. The totality of
`
`these circumstances is thus contrary to the AIA’s goal of providing for an efficient
`
`alternative means to resolve questions of validity.
`
`Indeed, the Board has identified factors relating to “whether efficiency,
`
`fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view
`
`of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding” in line with NHK Spring—each of
`
`which supports denial here. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, at
`
`6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). The Fintiv factors include:
`
`6
`
`

`

`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be
`granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision;
`3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties;
`4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are
`the same party; and
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion,
`including the merits.1
`As set forth below, a balancing of these factors demonstrates that the
`
`efficiency and integrity of the AIA are best served by denying institution. Indeed,
`
`the Board has previously held as such with respect to eleven different petitions filed
`
`by this same Petitioner against this same Patent Owner in view of similar
`
`circumstances. See, e.g., Supercell, IPR2020-00215, Paper 10, at 18; Supercell,
`
`IPR2020-00310, Paper 13, at 19; Supercell, IPR2020-00513, Paper 11, at 17–18;
`
`Supercell, PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at 26; Supercell, PGR2020-00038, Paper 14,
`
`at 28; Supercell, PGR2020-00039, Paper 14, at 26–27; Supercell, PGR2020-00041,
`
`1 As noted above, the Board has previously (and routinely) held that these same
`
`Fintiv factors are to be weighed in determining whether to apply discretion pursuant
`
`to § 324(a). See, e.g., Supercell, PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at 7.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Paper 14, at 25; Supercell, PGR2020-00043, Paper 13, at 18; Supercell, PGR2020-
`
`00046, Paper 13, at 24; Supercell, PGR2020-00049, Paper 14, at 22; Supercell,
`
`PGR2020-00053, Paper 12, at 25.
`
`A.
`
`Factor 1: whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that
`one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted
`“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial
`
`allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts,” and thus “weigh[s]
`
`against exercising the authority to deny institution under NHK.” Fintiv, IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 11, at 6. But here, Petitioner has not filed any motion to stay the parallel
`
`district court proceeding in view of the instant Petition. See Pet. at 72 (“Petitioner
`
`has not yet sought a stay ….”). And while, overall, a judge determines whether to
`
`grant a stay based on the facts of each case, there is little evidence here to suggest
`
`that the district court will grant a stay.
`
`In fact, any stay of the parallel district court proceeding in view of the instant
`
`Petition is extremely unlikely. The district court “has a consistent practice of denying
`
`motions to stay when the PTAB has yet to institute post-grant proceedings.” Saint
`
`Lawrence Commc’ns LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:15-CV-349-JRG, 2016 WL 7338600,
`
`at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2016). And any decision from this Board regarding
`
`institution is not due until a couple weeks before the jury trial in the parallel district
`
`court proceeding (set to begin on May 10, 2021). See 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11); Ex.
`
`2010; Ex. 2001, at 1. At that time, the “late stage” of the district court proceeding
`8
`
`

`

`will necessarily “weigh[] against a stay.” Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp., No.
`
`6:15-CV-463-RWS-JDL, 2016 WL 9340796, at *4–5 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2016)
`
`(denying motion to stay “[g]iven the advanced stage of litigation”).
`
`Thus, Petitioner has undisputedly not requested a stay, the district court has
`
`undisputedly not granted any stay, and the record does not include any evidence to
`
`even suggest that a stay, if requested, would be granted. Accordingly, this factor
`
`weighs in favor of the Board exercising its discretion to deny institution pursuant to
`
`§ 324(a). See SK Innovation Co. v. LG Chem, Ltd., IPR2020-01239, Paper 14, at 15
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021) (finding this factor “weigh[s] in favor of exercising []
`
`discretion to deny” institution under § 314(a) where “Petitioner has not requested a
`
`stay … and … a stay is unlikely given the advanced state of that proceeding”);
`
`Nintendo Co., Ltd. v. Gamevice, Inc., IPR2020-001197, Paper 13, at 11–12
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021) (same); see also Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v.
`
`Rovi Guides, Inc., IPR2020-00800, -00801, -00802, Paper 10, at 12–13 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Oct. 22, 2010) (finding this factor “weigh[s] in favor of exercising [] discretion to
`
`deny institution” where ITC trial was completed prior to decision on institution and
`
`thus “the ITC is unlikely to stay its investigation”).
`
`At a minimum, the factor is, at most, “neutral” as to the Board exercising its
`
`discretion to deny institution. See Supercell, IPR2020-00215, Paper 10, at 9;
`
`Supercell, IPR2020-00310, Paper 13, at 10; Supercell, IPR2020-00513, Paper 11, at
`
`9
`
`

`

`7–8; Supercell, PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at 9–10; Supercell, PGR2020-00038,
`
`Paper 14, at 9–10; Supercell, PGR2020-00039, Paper 14, at 9–10; Supercell,
`
`PGR2020-00041, Paper 14, at 9–10; Supercell, PGR2020-00043, Paper 13, at 8–9;
`
`Supercell, PGR2020-00046, Paper 13, at 7–8; Supercell, PGR2020-00049, Paper 14,
`
`at 7–8; Supercell, PGR2020-00053, Paper 12, at 9–10.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 2: proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision
`As demonstrated above by NHK Spring, “[i]f the court’s trial date is earlier
`
`than the projected statutory deadline, the Board generally has weighed this fact in
`
`favor of exercising authority to deny institution under NHK.” Fintiv, IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 11, at 9. Such is the case here. A jury trial in the parallel district court
`
`proceeding is currently set to begin on May 10, 2021. Ex. 2010; see Ex. 2001, at 1.
`
`Accordingly, trial in that proceeding is scheduled to conclude more than eleven
`
`months before a final written decision would be due in this proceeding (i.e., April
`
`2022), if the Board were to institute. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11).
`
`The Board has consistently denied institution in similar—and, in fact, even
`
`less similar—factual circumstances. See, e.g., Supercell, IPR2020-00513, Paper 11,
`
`at 8–10 (eleven-month gap between trial and deadline for final written decision);
`
`Supercell, IPR2020-00215, Paper 10, at 10–12 (ten-month gap); Google LLC v.
`
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC, IPR2020-00719, Paper 16, at 11
`
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2020) (ten-month gap); Kranos Corporation v. Apalone, Inc.,
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00501, Paper 13, at 10 (P.T.A.B. July 16, 2020) (ten-month gap); Edwards
`
`Lifesciences v. Evalve, Inc., IPR2019-01479, Paper 7, at 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2020)
`
`(nine-month gap); Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2020-00203, Paper 12, at 10
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 6, 2020) (eight-month gap); Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology
`
`LLC, IPR2020-00106, Paper 17, at 7 (P.T.A.B. May 5, 2020) (seven-month gap);
`
`Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC, IPR2020-00043, Paper 30, at
`
`8 (P.T.A.B. May 4, 2020) (seven-month gap); NHK Spring, IPR2018-00752, Paper
`
`8, at 20 (six-month gap); Supercell, IPR2020-00310, Paper 13, at 10–12 (six-month
`
`gap); see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Vocalife LLC, IPR2020-00864, Paper 22, at 10
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020) (“the trial date has passed” and thus “is substantially earlier
`
`than the projected statutory deadline for the Board’s final decision”).
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges that concerns and precautions with respect to the
`
`novel coronavirus (COVID-19) have recently impacted many aspects of the legal
`
`system, including both before this Board and before district courts. But the Board
`
`takes the court’s current schedule at “face value,” despite that fact. See Fintiv,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15, at 13 (“We generally take courts’ trial schedules at face
`
`value absent some strong evidence to the contrary. We have no reason to believe that
`
`the [] trial date, which already has been postponed by several months due to
`
`complications stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, will be postponed again.”);
`
`accord Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2020-01184, Paper 11,
`
`11
`
`

`

`at 12–13 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2021); see also Supercell, PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at
`
`11 (same); Supercell, PGR2020-00038, Paper 14, at 11 (same).
`
`This is especially true when the record “lacks specific, non-speculative
`
`evidence to suggest that [] delay of the trial date is likely in the parallel proceeding
`
`at issue [],” notwithstanding the fact that “some uncertainty exists, in theory, due to
`
`the COVID-19 pandemic.” Supercell, PGR2020-00034, Paper 13, at 11; Supercell,
`
`PGR2020-00038, Paper 14, at 11; Supercell, PGR2020-00039, Paper 14, at 11;
`
`Supercell, PGR2020-00041, Paper 14, at 11. And here, Petitioner fails to present any
`
`specific evidence that the jury trial in in the parallel proceeding will not proceed on
`
`May 10, 2021, as currently scheduled.2 Cf. id. This Board thus takes the court’s
`
`2 Patent Owner acknowledges that the district court recently continued all in-person
`
`jury trials “during December of 2020 and January through February of 2021” in view
`
`of the COVID-19 pandemic Ex. 2008. But that order expressly does not modify, let
`
`alone continue, the jury trial in parallel proceeding here, which is scheduled for May
`
`10, 2021. Ex. 2010; see Ex. 2001, at 1; see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Freshub, Ltd.,
`
`IPR2020-01145, Paper 10, at 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2021) (finding district court’s
`
`c