Inter Partes Reviews Tales From the Trenches Matthew C. Phillips - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Inter Partes Reviews – Tales From the Trenches

Matthew C. Phillips Laurence & Phillips IP Law August 7, 2019 Oregon State Bar, IP Section Portland, OR, USA

1

Disclaimer

• These materials are for informational purposes only and do

not constitute legal advice. Patent issues are fact-dependent and require the assistance of counsel experienced with such

• issues. Neither these materials nor attendance at the

associated presentation establishes any form of attorney- client relationship.

• These materials may contain inaccuracies, errors or omissions

despite our diligent efforts in preparing these materials, for which any liability is disclaimed.

• The views expressed in this presentation are solely those of

the presenters for the sake of pedagogy and entertainment and do not represent the views of Laurence & Phillips IP Law

• r clients of the firm.

2

Case Study #1

3

Case Study #1 – The ’346 Patent

4

Case Study #1 – ’346 Patent

5

Case Study #1 – IPRs

Case No. Filing Date Pet’nrs Refs. Result

IPR2013-00635 9/27/2013 Dell, HP, NetApp Hathorn Weygant Final written decision in favor of patent owner. Affirmed by Federal Circuit. IPR2014-00152 11/15/2013 Dell, HP, NetApp TruCluster OpenVMS Trial not instituted. IPR2014-00901 6/4/2014 VMware Hathorn + Mylex

• Consolidated. Final written decision

in favor of patent owner. Settled on appeal. IPR2014-00949 6/13/2014 IBM, Oracle Hathorn + Mylex IPR2014-00976 6/18/2014 IBM, Oracle Chong DeKoning Trial not instituted. IPR2015-00549 1/8/2015 Dell, HP, NetApp Hathorn + Mylex Trial not instituted in “representative” Board opinion.

6

Case Study #1 – Hathorn

Hathorn ’346 Patent

7

Case Study #1 – DeKoning

8

Case Study #1 – Katz Decl.

9

Case Study #1 – Mylex

10

Case Study #1 – The Purple Path Alternative

X

11

Case Study #2

12

Case Study #2 – The ’544 Patent

13

Case Study #2 – ’544 Patent Claims

14

• 8. A flash memory apparatus comprising:

a flash memory main body including a case within which a memory element is mounted, an USB (Universal Serial Bus) terminal piece electrically connected with the memory element and installed at a front end of the case in a projecting manner; and a cover including pair of parallel plate members facing each

• ther and spaced by an interval corresponding to the thickness of

the case, the cover having an open front end, a closed rear end and a pair of lateral side openings; the parallel plate members defining an inner space receiving the case and being hinged to the case wherein the USB terminal piece is positioned within the inner space of the cover or exposed outside the cover by rotating the cover and case with respect to one another.

Case Study #2 – ’544 Patent Claims

15

• 11. The apparatus according to claim 8 wherein the cover and

case are hinged by a hinge protuberance on at least one side of the case and at least one hinge hole in one of the parallel plate members that receives the hinge protuberance.

• 12. The apparatus of claim 11 wherein there is a hinged

protuberance on a front side and a back side of the case and a hinge hole in each of the parallel plate members. Other claims are like 11 but say “formed on” rather than “on.”

Case Study #2 – IPRs

Case No. Filing Date Claims Result

IPR2015-00149 10/24/2014 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20 Trial consolidated. Mixed final written decision. Affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part by Federal Circuit. IPR2014-00559 1/14/2015 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21-24

16

Case Study #2 – Matsumiya + Deng

17

+ ≠

’544 Patent

• Fig. 3a

Deng

• Fig. 2

Matsumiya

• Fig. 15a

Case Study #2 – Hoogesteger + Wu

18

+ ≠

’544 Patent

• Fig. 3a

Hoogesteger

• Fig. 3

Wu

• Fig. 2

• Board

– Interpreted (under BRI) “hinge protuberance” as “hinging structure that bulges out, protrudes, or projects, beyond the surrounding surface.” – Intrepreted (sua sponte) “on” merely indicates relative position and “formed on” as integrated and attached to.

• Federal Circuit

– “on” = “formed on” = “physically attached to or integrated into” – Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., 711 F. App’x 1020 (Fed.

• Cir. Nov. 6, 2017)

Case Study #2 – Decisions

19

Thank You!

20

Matthew C. Phillips Laurence & Phillips IP Law Portland, Oregon Washington, DC 503-964-1129 mphillips@lpiplaw.com