Strategic  Choices  By  Par1es  in  PTAB  Proceedings  

Jay  Kesan    Ar1  K.  Rai  

Saurabh  Vishnubhakat  

Background,  mo1va1on  for  our  project  

•  We  focus  on  li1gated  patents  that  are  also  in  post-­‐grant  proceedings  

•  Parallel  proceedings  with  many  poten1al  par1es  offer  strategic  possibili1es  –  Patent  owners:  when  and  where  to  assert  – Defendants  (and  others):  who  files  first  IPR  (and  when  they  file  it)  

–  Filing  of  mul1ple  IPRs  (by  same  pe11oner,  by  different  pe11oners)    

•  Preliminary  descrip1ve  data,  have  not  reached  norma1ve  conclusions  

District  Court  vs.  PTAB  

•  Incen1ves  to  challenge  patent  in  PTAB  linked  to  how  patent  asserted  in  district  court  – With  certain  excep1ons  (e.g.  joinder),  35  U.S.C.  §  315(b)  bars  challenger  from  filing  IPR  pe11on  if  that  challenger  (or  RPI  or  privy)  was  sued  by  the  patent  owner  for  infringement  more  than  1  year  earlier  

•  This  raises  at  least  two  interes1ng  ques1ons  

District  Court  vs.  PTAB  

•  Are  par1es  being  sued  in  U.S.  district  courts    the  same  par1es  that  are  filing  IPR  pe11ons  on  patents  asserted  against  them?  – One  approach:  for  patents  that  were  both  asserted  in  district  court  and  challenged  in  the  PTAB,  compare  the  last  district  court  defendant  and  the  first  IPR  pe11oner:  are  they  the  same?  

•  Answer  varies  by  technology  

District  Court  vs.  PTAB  

•  How  frequently  is  lag  between  patent  asser1on  in  district  court  and  IPR  pe11on  in  the  PTAB  longer  than  1  year?  – Even  if  1-­‐year  clock  not  yet  1cking  (because  the  defendant  is  someone  else),  there  may  s1ll  be  an  incen1ve  to  pe11on  sooner  rather  than  later  

– Plot  share  of  challenged  patents  for  which  the  lag  from  last  district  court  asser1on  to  IPR  pe11on  was  more  than  1  year  

The  Mul1ple  Pe11ons  Issue:  Methodology  

•  Coded  ins1tu1on  decisions,  final  decisions,  par1es,  panel  judges,  patent  numbers,  specific  claims,  grounds,  and  relevant  dates  for  the  2014  year,  i.e.,  the  period  from  Jan.  1,  2014  to  Dec.  31,  2014.  

•  Our  data  includes  pe11ons  filed  in  2013  that  were  decided  in  2014.    But  do  not  include  decisions  made  in  2015.      

•  Consequently,  our  data  on  mul1ple  IPR/CBM  pe11ons  challenging  the  same  patent  is  underinclusive.        

 

10  

2014  Breakdown  of  Patents  Challenged  In  Mul:ple  Pe::ons    

54  

75  

6   8  12   17  18  11  

18  

39  

Same  Pe11oner   Different  Pe11oners  

Number  of  Patents  Same  Claims,  Same  Grounds  Same  Claims,  Different  Grounds  Different  Claims,  Same  Grounds  Different  Claims,  Different  Grounds  

11  

Data  and  Analysis  •  The  previous  slide  contains  data  regarding  the  patents  that  had  mul1ple  

pe11ons  filed  against  them.      •  It  shows  the  number  of  different  patents  that  were  pe11oned  2  or  more  

1mes.  If  a  patent  was  challenged  at  least  twice  by  the  same  pe11oner  and  no  one  else,  that  was  counted  as  a  patent  pe11oned  by  the  same  pe11oner.    If  a  patent  was  challenged  at  least  twice  by  the  same  pe11oner  and  then  at  least  once  by  a  different  pe11oner,  that  was  counted  as  a  patent  challenged  by  different  pe11oners.      

•  54  patents  were  pe11oned  two  or  more  1mes  by  the  same  company,  and  75  patents  were  pe11oned  two  or  more  1mes  by  two  or  more  companies.      

•  To  get  a  more  granular  look  at  the  nature  of  the  mul1ple  pe11ons,  the  details  of  how  the  mul1ple  pe11ons  differ  from  one  another  is  also  shown.  

12  

2014  Breakdown  of  Patents  Challenged  in  Mul:ple  Pe::ons  

102  

17  5   2   2   1  

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

2  Pe11ons  3  Pe11ons  4  Pe11ons  5  Pe11ons  6  Pe11ons   21  Pe11ons  

13  *4  different  companies  challenged  U.S.  Patent  #  6,805,779  21  :mes  

Data  and  Analysis  

•  The  previous  slide  shows  the  number  of  different  patents  that  were  challenged  plofed  against  the  number  of  pe11ons  filed.      

•  For  example,  2  pe11ons  were  filed  against  102  different  patents  in  2014,  and  3  pe11ons  were  filed  against  17  different  patents  in  2014.  

•  4  different  companies  challenged  U.S.  Patent  #  6,805,779  21  1mes  

 

  14  

Case  studies  of  what  PTAB  does  with  mul1ple  pe11ons  

•  Same  pe11oner  •  Different  pe11oners  •  Zond  li1ga1on  involves  both  (and  Patent  #  6,805,779  –  most  mul1ple  pe11ons  in  our  sample)  

Zond  li1ga1on  •  7  patents  (10  against  Gillefe);  7  cases;  9  defendants;  filed  July  1-­‐9,  2013  –  Intel;  Fujitsu  &  TSMC;  Toshiba;  Gillefe;  Hynix;  Renasas;  AMD  &  Global  Foundries  

•  Assigned  to  5  different  judges  in  D.Ma.  (not  filed  as  related  cases)  

•  Intel  files  IPRs  first;  gets  stay  4/18/14;  ins1tuted  9/2/14  (then  sefled)  

•  Aler  4/18    (and  before  6/30)  all  except  Hynix  file  iden1cal  pe11ons  (same  claims,  same  grounds,  same  art)  

•  All  get  cases  stayed  based  on  pe11ons    

Joinder  mo1ons  

•  Some  file  joiner  mo1ons  with  pe11ons  or  soon  therealer  

•  August  5,  2014:  Board  orders  other  pe11oners  to  file  mo1ons  within  10  business  days  – Consequence  of  August  4  conference  call  with  Zond,  Intel,  TSMC,  Fujitsu,  Gillefe,  AMD,  GlobalFoundries,  Renesas,  and  Toshiba  

– Result:  joinder  for  all  pe11ons/patents  

Zond,  cont’d  

•  Intel  sefles  9/25/14  •  Pe11oners  joined  to  TSMC  pe11ons  (lead  pe11oners  reconfigured  again  aler  TSMC  sefles  3/11/15)  

•  Currently,  21  pending  reviews  of  9  patents  (with  56  joined  proceedings)  

•  Ac1ve  (efficient  and  fair?)  management  of  complex  li1ga1on  by  PTAB)  

Other  “heavily  pe11oned”  patents  

•  Patent  No.  7365871  •  E-­‐Watch  sues  11  firms  (ED  TX,  Payne)  (also  sues  on  7643168),  12/9-­‐12/10/13  

•  Iron  Dome  (not  sued)  files  pe11on  2/18/14  –  Ins1tuted  8/4/14  (sefled  2/24/15)  

•  HTC  pe11on  filed  6/19/14;  ins1tuted  12/9/2014  

•  HTC  ins1tu1on  starts  stream  of  IPRs  

Petitioner/Real Parties-in-Interest

Case Number Current Status Filing Date

Iron Dome LLCRozMed LLC, Steven S. Yu (collectively, “Iron Dome”)

IPR2014-00439 Terminated 2/18/2014 HTC IPR2014-00987 Instituted 6/19/2014 LG, Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Sharp

IPR2015-00402 No Decision on Institution

12/10/2014

(USA) Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications Inc. (collectively, “Sony”); Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation (collectively, “Sharp”)

     Kyocera IPR2015-00406 No Decision on Institution

12/10/2014

LG, Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Sharp

IPR2015-00404 No Decision on Institution

12/10/2014

Apple IPR2015-00411 Denied 12/11/2014

Apple IPR2015-00412 Instituted 12/11/2014

Apple IPR2015-00413 Denied 12/11/2014

Samsung IPR2015-00541 Joined With 2014- 00987; granted

1/7/2015

Samsung IPR2015-00610 No Decision on Institution

1/23/2015

Samsung IPR2015-00612 No Decision on Institution

1/23/2015

 

Patent  owner  u1lizes  325(d)  •  E.g.,  Apple  pe11ons  ‘411,  ‘412,  ‘413  •  E-­‐Watch  –  ‘411  overlaps  with  art  and  arguments  of  Kyocera  ‘406  and  Samsung  ‘612  (ci1ng  Conopco  v.  Procter  &  Gamble)  

–  ‘413  overlaps  with  art  and  arguments  of  Iron  Dome  ‘439;  also  serial  pe11oning  (Conopco)  

•  Board  denies  ‘411  and  ‘413  but  on  merits  (doesn’t  address  redundancy  arguments)  

•  Grants  ‘412,  even  though  similar  arguments  made  there    

Apple  ‘412  pe11on  and  325  (d)  •  “E-­‐Watch  urges  that  ins1tu1on  of  inter  partes  review  is  

discre1onary  under  35  U.S.C.  §  314(a)  and  that  we  should  exercise  our  discre1on  in  favor  of  non-­‐ins1tu1on  because  the  same  or  substan1ally  the  same  prior  art  or  arguments  previously  were  presented  to  the  Office.”  

•  En1rety  of  reasoning:  “We  have  considered  the  prior  art  and  arguments  presented  by  the  respec1ve  Pe11ons  in  IPR2014-­‐00987  and  IPR2015-­‐00413  involving  the  ’871  patent,  but  do  not  regard  the  overlap  in  prior  art  applied  and  arguments  asserted  therein,  rela1ve  to  those  asserted  by  Apple  here,  sufficient  to  warrant  a  discre1onary  denial  of  Apple’s  Pe11on  in  this  case.”    

Cases  in  which  325(d)  has  been  used  

•  Generally  same  pe11oner  with  subsequent  pe11on  filed  later  

•  Same  claims  previously  raised    •  325(d)  used  even  if  mo1on  for  joinder  (e.g.  Medtronic  v.  Robert  Bosch,  IPR2014-­‐00436,  Paper  17)  

 

Beyond  325(d)  (non-­‐cumula1ve  art/arguments,  same  pe11oner)  

•  Unilever  v.  Procter  &  Gamble,  IPR2014-­‐00506,  Paper  17  •  2nd  pe11on  on  claims  previously  rejected  in  decision  to  ins1tute  

(with  joinder  pe11on)  •  7  new  prior  art  cita1ons  •  Board  (nominally)  uses  325(d);  but  also  notes  “no  argument  or  

evidence  that  the  seven  newly  cited  references  were  not  known  or  available  to  it  at  the  1me  of  filing  of  the  [earlier]  pe11on.”  

•  Denial  of  pe11on  for  reh’g  (Paper  25):    PTAB  rejects  idea  that  “pe11oners  [may]  unveil  strategically  their  best  prior  art  and  arguments  in  serial  pe11ons,  using  our  decision  on  ins1tu1on  as  a  roadmap.”    (estoppel-­‐type  argument?)  

 

Different  pe11oner  barred  •  Unified  Patents  v.  Personal  Web,  IPR  2014-­‐00702,  Paper  13  •  Unusual  circumstances  

–  Highly  staggered  district  court  lawsuits  (17  defendants  in  total)  –  2  ins1tuted  pe11ons  (EMC  and  Rackspace)  (UP  wants  to  join  Rackspace);  EMC  decision  invalida1ng  all  but  one  of  challenged  claims  on  appeal  to  CAFC  

–  Same  invalidity  grounds,  same  prior  art  •  Had  denied  previous  request  by  NetApp  for  joinder  to  

Rackspace  pe11on  •  Rackspace  later  sefles  (good  idea  to  bar  joinder  by  Netapp,  

UP?)  

Ques1ons  

•  Should  PTAB  require  later-­‐in-­‐1me  pe11ons  to  specify  how  their  art,  arguments  differ  from  prior  pe11ons?  (or  say  they  are  explicitly  iden1cal  for  joinder  purposes  e.g.  Zond)  – Rulemaking  authority  under  316(a)  

•  Should  requirements  differ  for  same  pe11oner  vs.  different  pe11oner?