Broadband iTV, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

IPR2020-01359 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 25
571-272-7822 Date: April 1, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
BROADBAND iTV, INC.,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing of Decision on Institution
37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
I. INTRODUCTION
Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 18, “Req. Reh’g”)
of our Decision (Paper 15, “Dec.”) to institute an inter partes review of
claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,388 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’388 patent”).
Petitioner contends that we “misapprehended or overlooked key facts and
legal precedent, and abused [our] discretion when evaluating and weighing”
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
2
the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11
(PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). Req. Reh’g 1. Patent
Owner also “suggests Expanded Panel Review to secure and maintain
uniformity in applying [Fintiv] and its progeny.” Id.
Our governing statutes and regulations do not provide for parties to
request, or panels to authorize, an expanded panel. See generally 35 U.S.C.
§ 6; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.1–42.412. The Chief Judge, however, may consider
panel expansion upon a “suggestion” from a judge, panel, or party. PTAB
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 1,1 15; see also Apple Inc. v.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., IPR2014-00319, Paper 20 at 2 n.1 (PTAB
Dec. 12, 2014) (expanded panel) (per curiam).
The Standard Operating Procedure exemplifies some of the reasons
for which the Chief Judge may expand a panel. PTAB SOP 1, 15 (§ III.M).
For example, an expanded panel may be appropriate “to secure and maintain
uniformity of the Board’s decisions, e.g., in related cases ordinarily
involving different three judge panels.” Id. (§ III.M.1).
Upon receiving the Rehearing Request, we followed the procedure set
forth in § III.M.3 of SOP 1 regarding a suggestion for an expanded panel. In
this case, the Chief Judge has considered Patent Owner’s suggestion for an
expanded panel but has determined that an expanded panel is not warranted.
For the reasons stated below, Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is
denied.

1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
SOP%201%20R15%20FINAL.pdf.
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
3
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the
decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of
discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law,
if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the
decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.”
Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party
requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and
“[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the
Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).

III. ANALYSIS
A. Patent Owner’s Request to Admit New Evidence
Before turning to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary
denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314, we consider Patent Owner’s request to admit
new evidence into the record. See Req. Reh’g 1–2. A precedential Board
decision advises that,
[i]deally, a party seeking to admit new evidence with a rehearing
request would request a conference call with the Board prior to
filing such a request so that it could argue “good cause” exists
for admitting the new evidence. Alternatively, a party may argue
“good cause” exists in the rehearing request itself.
Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00816,
Paper 19 at 4 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential). “Absent a showing of
‘good cause’ prior to filing the request for rehearing or in the request for
rehearing itself, new evidence will not be admitted.” Patent Trial and
Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 90, available
at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. At Patent
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
4
Owner’s request, we held a conference call with the parties before Patent
Owner filed its rehearing request to hear arguments on whether good cause
exists to admit certain new evidence. See Ex. 2034 (transcript of
February 2, 2021, conference call).
During the call, Patent Owner sought authorization to file three items
in this proceeding:
(1) Petitioner’s, Final Invalidity Contentions and relevant claim
charts served January 8, 2021, in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. DISH
Network, L.L.C., Case No. 6:19-cv-716 (W.D. Tex.)2 (“the Texas
case”);
(2) AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Communications, LLC, and
DIRECTV, LLC’s Final Invalidity Contentions and relevant
claim charts served January 29, 2021, in Broadband iTV, Inc. v.
AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-712 (W.D. Tex.), and
Broadband iTV, Inc. v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 6:19-cv-714
(W.D. Tex.) (consolidated into Case No. 6:19-cv-712, “the
AT&T case”); and
(3) a PACER report of the current docket in the Texas case.
Ex. 2034, 4:18–5:6. Patent Owner explained that Petitioner’s final invalidity
contentions “include about 180 claim charts that total about 7,500 pages”
and that “AT&T’s [final invalidity] contentions include about 50 charts
totaling over 17,000 pages.” Id. at 7:24–8:3. Patent Owner argued that good
cause exists to admit this evidence, which Petitioner disputed. See generally
id.
On the call, we expressed concern with the volume of information
Patent Owner sought to introduce, and Patent Owner agreed to file a much
smaller volume of information (approximately 1,000 pages). Id. at
23:24–31:1. We reserved ruling on Patent Owner’s request to admit the new

2 We refer to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas as “the Texas court.”
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
5
evidence because, at that point, we could not reach a “good cause”
determination without knowing exactly what Patent Owner would seek to
admit, and we instructed Patent Owner to present its arguments regarding
good cause in its rehearing request. Id. at 31:8–32:8, 35:5–12.
After the conference call, Patent Owner filed a total of 538 pages of
evidence in Exhibits 2031–2033, significantly less than the initial volume of
evidence it sought to introduce. Having considered the parties’ arguments
during the conference call on February 2, 2021, we grant Patent Owner’s
request to admit Exhibits 2031–2033 with the Request for Rehearing and
discuss the evidence below where relevant.
In its Request for Rehearing, Patent Owner also requests that we
consider the petition and motion for joinder filed by the defendants in the
AT&T case in Case IPR2021-00556 challenging a patent related to the
’388 patent, stating that Patent Owner expects those parties “to also seek
joinder in this proceeding.”3 Req. Reh’g 2. Patent Owner argues that the
other filings “demonstrate that the Panel should consider the facts and
circumstances of the AT&T case.” Id. We discuss the evidence and facts of
the AT&T case below where relevant.

B. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
Patent Owner argues that we “misapprehended or overlooked key
facts and abused [our] discretion in evaluating and weighing the Fintiv
factors.” Req. Reh’g 2. Patent Owner also argues that we should consider
the AT&T case in evaluating the second and fourth Fintiv factors. Id. at

3 The defendants in the AT&T case subsequently filed a petition and motion
for joinder with this proceeding in Case IPR2021-00649 on March 12, 2021.
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
6
5–9. For the reasons explained below, we disagree that we should exercise
discretion to deny institution.

1. Whether the Court Granted a Stay or Evidence Exists that One
May Be Granted if a Proceeding Is Instituted
In the Decision, we stated that “[i]t would be improper to speculate, at
this stage, what the Texas court might do regarding a motion to stay, given
the particular circumstances of this case.” Dec. 11 (emphasis added).
Patent Owner argues that, by stating this, we “expressly declined to evaluate,
and thus overlooked, [the] evidence” that Patent Owner introduced with its
Preliminary Response. Req. Reh’g 3–5 (citing Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”),
13–14, 17). We disagree. Rather, we evaluated Patent Owner’s arguments
and evidence in making our determination. See Dec. 12–13.
Further, on May 7, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion to transfer, which
has not been decided by the Texas court, and, therefore, has been pending
for over ten months. Ex. 2033, 5 (Docket No. 37). As we noted in the
Decision, this pending motion introduces some uncertainties as to the current
trial schedule in the Texas case, and the same is true as to the possibility for
a stay. See Dec. 15–16.
After considering Patent Owner’s arguments on rehearing, we
maintain that this factor is neutral to the exercise of our discretion.

2. Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date to the Board’s Projected
Statutory Deadline for a Final Written Decision
After evaluating the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we
determined that “this factor is, at most, slightly in favor of exercising our
discretion to deny the Petition.” Dec. 12–16. In arriving at this
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
7
determination, we noted that there is a pending motion to transfer in the
Texas case that, if granted, “would necessitate a new trial date.” Id. at
15. We also stated that
[w]ith respect to the AT&T case (for which Petitioner’s motion
to transfer is irrelevant), there does not appear to be significant
overlap between Petitioner’s contentions in this proceeding and
the invalidity contentions of the defendants in that case
(factor 4).
Id. at 16 n.4.
On rehearing, Patent Owner argues that we should consider the Texas
case and the AT&T case “collectively” and that “the AT&T [case], in the
same court with the same schedule, mitigates concerns about the pending
transfer motion because trial is set more than two months before the
projected final decision deadline, AT&T has not filed a motion for stay, and
the Panel would duplicate the district court’s efforts.” Req. Reh’g 5–6.
Patent Owner also alleges that there is overlap between issues in this
proceeding and in the AT&T case. Id. at 6–8.
We consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to issue overlap in
analyzing Fintiv factor 4 below. As to Patent Owner’s reliance on the
AT&T case for factor 2, we agree with Patent Owner that the lack of a
transfer motion in that case mitigates the particular concern we raised in the
Decision regarding the pending transfer motion in the Texas case. But the
AT&T case raises a different issue that works against Patent Owner for this
factor. As we discussed in the Decision, Petitioner pointed out that the
Texas court has issued orders delaying trials due to the COVID-19
pandemic, and Petitioner argued that these trials will need to be rescheduled,
which will cause cascading delays that affect other trials. See Paper 1
(“Pet.”) at 8–10 (citing Exs. 1020–1024, 1028–1030); Dec. 13. Patent
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
8
Owner countered that these orders “permit different divisions in the Western
District [of Texas] to make their own determinations whether to proceed
with jury trials based on the situation in their locations” and that, “[o]n
August 18, 2020, Judge Albright issued a Divisional Standing Order
Regarding Trials In Waco indicating that the Waco ‘Division may safely
conduct trials.’” Prelim. Resp. 18–19 (citing Exs. 1028, 1029, 2006, 2007).
The AT&T case, however, was transferred to the Austin Division of the
Texas court, although it was kept on the docket of Judge Albright. Ex. 3004
(Order Transferring Case to the Austin Division). The Orders cited by
Patent Owner (Exhibits 2006 and 2007) govern trials in the Waco Division.
Because the AT&T case is in the Austin Division where jury trials have been
delayed, we cannot ignore that the AT&T case introduces potential delay
issues that are not present in the Texas case.
We already determined that Fintiv factor 2, at most, slightly favors
exercising discretion to deny. Dec. 16. The AT&T case introduces issues
that effectively balance each other out, as discussed above. Therefore,
we maintain that this factor slightly favors exercising discretion to deny.

3. Investment in the Parallel Proceeding by the Court and the Parties
In the Decision, we determined that “this factor weighs strongly
against exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” Dec. 17–20.
On rehearing, Patent Owner argues that we (1) “misapprehended or
overlooked the parties’ significant investment in the parallel litigation,” and
(2) “overstated [Petitioner]’s purported diligence in filing the [P]etition.”
Req. Reh’g 9–13. We address each of these in turn.

IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
9
a) The Parties’ Investment in the Parallel Litigation
Patent Owner argues that, in the Decision, we focused on the Texas
court’s actions in ruling on claim construction and on Petitioner’s motion to
dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but overlooked the parties’ investment in
briefing and arguing these matters. Req. Reh’g 10. We did not overlook
these efforts; we expressly addressed them. Dec. 17–19. Patent Owner
simply disagrees with our assessment, but this is not the purpose of a
rehearing request. See supra Section II. Further, in support of its argument
regarding the parties’ investment in claim construction and § 101 briefing,
Patent Owner merely refers to various entries on the docket of the Texas
case. Req. Reh’g 10 (citing Ex. 2033, Docket Nos. 17, 28, 32, 56,
62–64, 67, 68). Patent Owner discussed these efforts in its previous briefing
and, therefore, is simply rearguing its case on rehearing. See Prelim.
Resp. 22. Again, we considered, and did not overlook, what Patent Owner
cited.
Patent Owner further argues that, “other than noting that [Patent
Owner] indicated final infringement and invalidity contentions would be
served before the institution decision on January 8, 2021, the Panel
overlooked the parties’ significant investments in preparing final
contentions.” Req. Reh’g 10 (citing Dec. 18). We did not overlook these
efforts; rather, we expressly considered them along with the fact that
discovery had only recently begun and expert discovery does not begin until
June 2021. Dec. 18–19. Further, it is not clear on this record why the effort
Patent Owner expended in preparing final infringement contentions was
“significant” because the contentions are not in the record. Petitioner
submitted Exhibit 1027, which is a cover document for Patent Owner’s
preliminary infringement contentions in the Texas case. Exhibit 1027 itself
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
10
is four pages, one of which is the signature page, and mostly recites
boilerplate. This document does not show any significant level of
investment. Exhibit 1027 states that Patent Owner’s “preliminary
infringement contentions are attached hereto as Exhibits 1–4,” each of which
corresponds to a different patent involved in inter partes reviews: Exhibit 1
(U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 B2 (IPR2020-01267)), Exhibit 2 (U.S. Patent
No. 10,506,269 B2 (IPR2020-01332)), Exhibit 3 (U.S. Patent No. 9,998,791
B2 (IPR2020-01280)), and Exhibit 4 (the ’388 patent). None of these
exhibits has been entered in this proceeding, but in Case IPR2020-01267,
Petitioner submitted the claim chart for the challenged patent in that case as
Exhibit 1027. That claim chart has screen shots of Petitioner’s products and
links to websites to show how each element of the asserted claims is
allegedly met, which is what one would expect from an infringement claim
chart in the ordinary course of litigation. Patent Owner did not seek to enter
its final infringement contentions with its Request for Rehearing, and,
therefore, we can only speculate as to the level of effort expended in their
preparation, which Patent Owner characterizes as “significant.” See Req.
Reh’g 10.
Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s “submission (and [Patent
Owner’s] subsequent consideration) of the final invalidity contentions
served January 8, 2021, including about 180 claim charts,” favors exercising
discretion to deny. Id. at 9–10. We can only speculate as to how much
effort Patent Owner expended in its “consideration” of Petitioner’s
contentions, but, regardless, in instituting review we considered the portions
of the final invalidity contentions filed by Patent Owner. See Dec. 19.
Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he [Texas] court and [Patent Owner]
have also invested heavily in the related AT&T case, which presents
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
11
overlapping invalidity considerations and should be considered when
evaluating efficient use of judicial resources.” Req. Reh’g 10–11 (citing
Paper 12, 2). The defendants in the AT&T case are not parties to this
proceeding.4 Patent Owner does not detail the efforts made by the Texas
court and Patent Owner in the AT&T case, but argues that both the Texas
case and the AT&T case are “in the same court with the same schedule,”
which suggests similar efforts have been made in both cases and does not tip
the scale any further in favor of exercising discretion to deny. See id. at 6.
We note, though, that because the final invalidity contentions in the AT&T
case were served on January 29, 2021, the only efforts by Patent Owner to
review the contentions before our Institution Decision could have been
during the two weeks between that date and February 12, 2021 (the date of
our Decision).

b) Diligence in Filing Petition
In the Decision, we stated that Petitioner’s filing of the Petition within
three months of receiving Patent Owner’s preliminary infringement
contentions indicated diligence that weighs against exercising discretion to
deny. Dec. 19–20. On rehearing, Patent Owner argues that this is
inconsistent with a precedential decision of the Board. Req. Reh’g 11–13
(citing Snap, Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 at 11 (PTAB
Oct. 21, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Snap”)). Patent Owner,
however, focuses only on the timing of the Petition in relation to the
identification of asserted claims. In the Decision, we noted that Petitioner

4 No decision on either the petition or motion for joinder filed by AT&T and
DIRECTV in Case IPR2021-00649 has been made at this time.
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
12
filed the Petition “approximately three months after receiving notice of
Patent Owner’s infringement positions for all asserted claims (including
those not identified originally in the complaint) and prior to the parties
exchanging proposed claim constructions and briefing claim construction
issues in the Texas case.” Dec. 20. By contrast, in Snap, the petitioner
argued that “the timing of filing enabled the Petition to take into account
both parties’ claim construction positions, which resulted in a more focused
and thorough petition than what would have been possible even weeks
earlier.” Snap, Paper 15 at 12. Thus, the present case is distinguishable
from Snap in that Petitioner did not wait until after learning Patent Owner’s
claim construction positions to file the Petition.

c) Factor 3 Determination
Having considered Patent Owner’s arguments on rehearing, we
maintain our determination that this factor weighs strongly against
exercising our discretion to deny the Petition. See Dec. 20.

4. Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and
in the Parallel Proceeding
After evaluating the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record,
we determined that “there is overlap with respect to the Texas case as to the
claims and identified grounds based on Baumgartner, Son, Scheffler,
CableLabs, and Baumgartner II,” but found no “significant overlap with
respect to the AT&T case.” Dec. 20–22. We concluded that factor 4
“weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” Id.
On rehearing, Patent Owner argues that we “misapprehended or
overlooked the overlap in the AT&T case” because Fintiv “does not require
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
13
. . . complete overlap with an identical combination of references for factor 4
to favor denial.” Req. Reh’g 6 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner contends
that that the defendants in the AT&T case “challenge[] the same claims
under the same statutory ground (obviousness) with combinations that
include at least four of the five same references.” Id. at 7–8 (emphasis
omitted). As it did in its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner analogizes to
Mylan Labs. Ltd v. Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, IPR2020-00440, Paper 17
(PTAB Sept. 16, 2020) (“Mylan”), regarding a second district court case not
involving the petitioner seeking inter partes review. See Req. Reh’g 8–9;
Prelim. Resp. 14.
We are not persuaded. We did not require complete overlap as Patent
Owner contends, but rather reviewed the cited invalidity contentions and
assessed the degree of overlap between the issues raised in the AT&T case
and this proceeding, finding that the overlap was not significant. See
Dec. 22. We also disagree with Patent Owner that the AT&T case
involves the “same statutory ground” as this proceeding. See Req.
Reh’g 7 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner in this proceeding asserts
twogrounds: (1) claims 1–13 and 15–19 as unpatentable over Baumgartner,
Son, Scheffler, and CableLabs under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and (2) claim 14 as
unpatentable over Baumgartner, Son, Scheffler, CableLabs, and
Baumgartner II under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Pet. 7–8; Dec. 9. The
invalidity contentions in the AT&T case list a set of base references (one of
which is Baumgartner), and a lengthy list of secondary references for
“[e]xample [c]ombinations.” Ex. 2032, 38–47. With respect to
Baumgartner in particular, 133 references are listed as potentially being
combined with Baumgartner in unspecified “and/or” combinations. Id. at
39–40. Among the 133 references are Son, CableLabs, and Baumgartner II,
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
14
but not Scheffler. See id. Thus, although there is some overlap, there is less
overlap with respect to the AT&T case than we already determined existed
with respect to the Texas case.
Further, the degree of overlap between this proceeding and the AT&T
case is less than the overlap in Mylan, where the panel found that “both
litigations and the proposed inter partes review rely primarily upon the same
[three] references in their invalidity contentions.” Mylan, Paper 17 at 20–21.
The invalidity contentions in Mylan listed specific obviousness grounds
identifying the relevant references. Id. (citing Exhibits 2007 and 2008 in
that proceeding). By contrast, the invalidity contentions in the AT&T case
list myriad different potential combinations, never specifically identifying a
ground based on Baumgartner, Son, CableLabs, and Baumgartner II and
never identifying any ground based on a combination with Scheffler. See
Ex. 2032, 39–40.
Regardless, we already determined that Fintiv factor 4 weighs in favor
of exercising discretion to deny. Dec. 22. Patent Owner’s reliance on the
AT&T case on rehearing does not change our factor 4 determination.

5. Whether the Petitioner and the Defendant in the Parallel Proceeding
Are the Same Party
In the Decision, we noted that the fact that Petitioner is the defendant
in the Texas case “could weigh either in favor of, or against, exercising
discretion to deny institution, depending on which tribunal was likely to
address the challenged patent first.” Dec. 22–23. We then determined that
“this factor is, at most, slightly in favor of exercising our discretion to deny
the Petition.” Id. at 23. On rehearing, Patent Owner argues that factor 5
weighs in favor of denial, not “slightly” in favor of denial. Req. Reh’g 13–
IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
15
14. We disagree. In this factor, Fintiv considers whether the Board would
be “redoing the work of another tribunal.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 14. Thus, the
timing of the parallel proceeding is relevant to consider in this factor. The
factor, at most, slightly favors exercising discretion to deny. Dec. 23.
Further, many of Patent Owner’s arguments on rehearing are based on
the AT&T case, to which Petitioner is not a party. See Req. Reh’g 6–9.
Patent Owner argues that “the AT&T case adds further weight in favor of
denying institution under factor 5; it does not subtract weight” because “the
AT&T case raises the same or substantially similar issues as” this
proceeding. Id. at 14–15 (emphasis omitted). We disagree that the AT&T
case raises substantially the same issues as this proceeding for the reasons
explained above. See supra Section II.B.4. Fintiv advises that, “[i]f a
petitioner is unrelated to a defendant in an earlier court proceeding, the
Board has weighed this fact against exercising discretion to deny
institution.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 13–14. Thus, to the extent Patent Owner
requests us to reconsider our Decision in light of the AT&T case, this factor
weighs against exercising discretion to deny.

6. Other Circumstances that Impact the Board’s Exercise of Discretion,
Including the Merits
In the Decision, we determined that “the merits in this proceeding,
taken as a whole, weigh against discretionary denial.” Dec. 24. Patent
Owner does not present any arguments regarding this factor in its Request
for Rehearing.

IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
16
7. Overall Reassessment of Fintiv Factors
After considering Patent Owner’s arguments on rehearing, we are not
persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters or abused our
discretion in declining to exercise discretion to deny institution.

IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, we determine that Patent Owner
has not demonstrated that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters in
the Decision or abused our discretion. We, therefore, decline to exercise our
discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314.

V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.

IPR2020-01359
Patent 9,648,388 B2
17
FOR PETITIONER:
Alyssa Caridis
K. Patrick Herman
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
a8cptabdocket@orrick.com
p52ptabdocket@orrick.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Sal Lim
David Alberti
Hong Lin
Russell Tonkovich
FEINBERG DAY KRAMER ALBERTI LIM TONKOVICH
& BELLOLI LLP
slim@feinday.com
dalberti@feinday.com
hlin@feinday.com

Michael D. Specht
Jason A. Fitzsimmons
Richard M. Bemben
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
mspecht-ptab@sternekessler.com
jfitzsimmons-ptab@sternekessler.com
rbemben-ptab@sternekessler.com

Kevin Greenleaf
DENTONS US LLP
kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com