Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/139675654/Intellectual-Ventures-v-Rea
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 20:51:06
Document Index: 346243293

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 145', '§ 145', '§ 701', '§ 134', '§ 1', '§ 701', '§ 1331', '§ 145', '§ 145', '§ 145', '§ 1391', '§ 41', '§ 1', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 145', '§ 701', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', 'art16']

Intellectual Ventures v. Rea | Title 35 Of The United States Code
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinFILEDIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
^ 4PR 3f) r>
Civil Action No HON. TERESA STANEK REA in her official
capacity as UNDER SECRETARY OF
PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE
PlaintiffIntellectual Ventures I LLC ("IV"), by and through its undersigned counsel, for
its complaint against defendant, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), alleges as follows:
Thiscivil action is brought pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 by the assignee of U.S.
Patent Application Serial No. 09/553,337 ("the '337 Application"), PlaintiffIV, against the
Director of the PTO seeking a judgment thatPlaintiff is entitled to a patent for the invention
specified in Claims 114-122,124-126, 128-141,143-145, 147-155,157-161, 163-173, 175-179,
and 181-202 of the '337 Application, which claims are the subject of a Decision on Appeal by
the PatentTrial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") and a Decision on Request for Rehearing by the
Plaintiff has not appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
This action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 145 and the Administrative Procedures Act,
5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, because Plaintiff IV, to whom the applicant's rights in the '337 Application have been assigned, is dissatisfied with the decision of the PTAB affirming the PTO's rejection
of Claims 114-122, 124-126, 128-141, 143-145, 147-155,157-161, 163-173, 175-179, and 181-
202 of the '337 Application in an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134.
Plaintiff IV is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware and has its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington.
The inventor of the '337 Patent Application, which was filed on April 20, 2000,
and is entitled "Method for Updating Software," is Richard R. Reisman, a citizen of the United
States. A copy of the '337 Patent Application is attached as Exhibit A. IV is the assignee of all
right, title, and interest in the '337 Patent Application by virtue of a series of assignments and transactions: (1) from inventorRichard R. Reisman to Teleshuttle Techs., LLC, recorded on July
15,2004, at Reel 014852, Frame 0631; (2) from inventor Richard R. Reisman to Teleshuttle
Techs., LLC, recorded on March 30,2006, at Reel 017400, Frame 0442 (amendment); (3) from
Teleshuttle Techs., LLC, to BTG Int'l, Inc., recorded on March 30,2006, at Reel 017400, Frame
0446; (4) from BTG Int'l, Inc. to TwinTech E.U., Limited Liability Company, recorded on
August 14,2006, at Reel 018099, Frame0184; (5) from TwinTech E.U., Limited Liability
Company, to Intellectual Ventures I LLC, recorded on September 7, 2011, at Reel 026868,
Frame 0667; and (6) from TwinTech E.U., Limited Liability Company, to Intellectual Ventures I
LLC, recorded on September 25,2012, at Reel 029036, Frame 0717 (corrective assignment).
Intellectual Property and the Acting Director of the PTO. The Director is the head of the agency,
charged by statute with providing management supervision of the PTO. Ms. Rea is sued in her
official capacity as Acting Director of the PTO.
1338 because this is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States and relating to patents, including the United States Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Jurisdiction also exists
under 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. This court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 and 35 U.S.C. § 145 (as amended by the America Invents Act on September 16,2011).
This Court has authority to review the decision of the PTAB and to authorize the
Director of the PTO to issue a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 (as amended by the
America Invents Act on September 16,2011) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
The Decision on Appeal for the '337 Application ("Appeal Decision") was mailed
on November 30,2012. A copy of the Appeal Decision is attached as Exhibit B. 11. A Request for Rehearing regarding the Appeal Decision was filed at the PTO on
January 30,2013. Pursuantto 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1), which requires filing a request for
rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board, the Request for
Rehearing was timely. A copy of the Request for Rehearing is attached as Exhibit C.
The "Decision on Request for Reconsideration" ("Rehearing Decision") was
mailed on March 1, 2013. A copy of the Rehearing Decision is attached as Exhibit D. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.304(a)(1), which indicates that the time for "commencing a civil action shall
expire two months after action on the request" for rehearing, this Complaint is timely.
On January 25, 2010, the PTO mailed an Office Action ("the Final Office
Action") finally rejecting Claims 114-122, 124-126, 128-141, 143-145, 147-155, 157-161,163173,175-179, and 181-202 of the '337 Application ("the rejected claims"). A copy of the
rejected claims is attached as Exhibit E. A copy of the Final Office Action is attached as Exhibit
The Final Office Action includes two rejections: (a) a rejection of Claims 114,
116-122,124-126,128-131,133-141,143-145,147-150, 152, 153-155, 157-161, 163-172,175-
179, and 181-202 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as purportedly obvious over four publications:
(1) U.S. Patent No. 5,734,871 to Kleinerman et al. ("Kleinerman"); (2) the "RIPscrip Graphics Protocol Specification" ("RIPscrip" or "Qmodem"); (3) the definition of "graphical user
interface" from the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Second Edition ("Microsoft Press");
and (4) U.S. Patent No. 5,630,125 to Zellweger ("Zellweger"); and (b) a rejection of Claims 115, 132,151, 154, 172, and 175-190 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as purportedly obvious over five
publications: (1) Kleinerman; (2) RIPscrip; (3) Microsoft Press; (4) Zellweger; and (5) U.S.
Patent No. 6,031,977 to Pettus ("Pettus").
On April 19,2010, an Amendment and Reply to the Final Office Action was filed
("the After Final Amendment").
On June 6,2010, an Advisory Action was mailed. The Advisory Action indicated
that the After Final Amendment would not be entered.
A Notice of Appeal was timely filed on June 24, 2010.
The Brief on Appeal for the '337 Application was timely filed on August 18,
The Examiner's Answer to the Appeal Brief was mailed on November 12,2010.
The Reply Brief on Appeal for the '337 Application was timely filed on January
The PTAB's Appeal Decision affirmed the PTO's final rejection of Claims 114-
122,124-126, 128-141, 143-145,147-155, 157-161, 163-173, 175-179, and 181-202 of the'337
The PTAB's Rehearing Decision granted "the Request for Rehearing to further
elaborate and highlight: (i) page 4, lines 6-12; and (ii) page 5, lines 7-14, 15-19, and 23-25 of
[the PTAB's] original Decision" but otherwise maintained the affirmance of the final rejection of
Claims 114-122,124-126, 128-141,143-145, 147-155,157-161, 163-173,175-179, and 181-202
of the '337 Application.
23. IV has exhausted its administrative remedies and seeks relief from this Court
under 35 U.S.C. § 145 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.
IV is dissatisfied with the decision of the PTAB affirming the PTO's final
rejectionof Claims 114-122,124-126,128-141, 143-145,147-155, 157-161, 163-173, 175-179, and 181-202of the '337 Application under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in an appeal under 35 U.S.C.
IV is dissatisfied with the decision of the PTAB at least because the PTO as well
as the PTAB committed factual and legal error in concluding that Claims 114-122,124-126, 128-
141,143-145,147-155, 157-161,163-173,175-179, and 181-202 of the '337 Application are
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
26. IV is dissatisfied with the decision of the PTO and the PTAB because additional
evidence will confirm that the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of Claims 114122, 124-126,128-141, 143-145,147-155, 157-161, 163-173,175-179, and 181-202 of the'337
Application was erroneous.
The actions, findings, and conclusions of the PTO, including those of the
Examiner of the '337 Application, as well as of the PTAB regarding the alleged unpatentability
of Claims 114-122,124-126, 128-141,143-145,147-155,157-161,163-173, 175-179, and 181-
202 of the '337 Application should be set aside at least because those actions, findings, and
conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and/or otherwise not in accordance with law, fail to observe the procedure required by the law, and are unwarranted.
Paragraphs 1-27 are incorporated by reference in their entireties as if fully set
The conclusion, and the actions and findings underlying the conclusion, by the
PTO, including the Examiner of the '337 Application, as well as the PTAB that Claims 114,116122, 124-126,128-131,133-141,143-145,147-150,152, 153-155,157-161,163-172,175-179,
and 181-202 of the '337 Application are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) due to Kleinerman,
RIPscrip, Microsoft Press, and Zellweger is erroneous.
30. The conclusion, and the actions and findings underlying the conclusion, by the
PTO, including the Examiner of the '337 Application, as well as the PTAB that Claims 115,132,
151, 154,172, and 175-190 of the '337 Application are obvoius under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) due to
Kleinerman, RIPscrip, Microsoft Press, Zellweger, and Pettus is erroneous.
31. Claims 114-122,124-126,128-141,143-145, 147-155, 157-161, 163-173,175-
179, and 181-202 of the '337 Application are patentable and satisfy, inter alia, 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as well as applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and a U.S. Patent should
issue thereon.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff IV respectfully requests the following relief: A. Entry ofjudgment setting aside and reversing the PTAB's conclusion, and the
actions and findings underlying the conclusion, that Claims 114-122, 124-126,128-141,143-
145,147-155, 157-161, 163-173,175-179, and 181-202 of the '337 Application are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
Entry ofjudgment declaring that IV is entitled to receive a patent for the invention
of Claims 114-122,124-126, 128-141, 143-145, 147-155, 157-161, 163-173,175-179, and 181-
202 of the '337 Application and authorizing the Director to issue such a patent;
Entry ofjudgment awarding IV such further relief at law and/or in equity as this
Respectfully si!
Dated: April 30,2013
irin M. Dunston, Esa^TVn-gmia Bar No. 44,842) Email: erin.dunston@bipc.com Charles F. Wieland III, Esq. (Virginia Bar No. 32,108) Email: charles.wieland@bipc.com Rachel J. Elsby, Ph.D., Esq. (Virginia Bar No. 81,389) Email: rachel.elsby@bipc.com
1737 King Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Telephone: (703) 836-6620 Facsimile: (703)836-2021
Philip L. Hirschhorn, Esq. (pro hac vice application to be filed)
Email: philip.hirschhorn@bipc.com
1290 Avenue of the Americas, 30th Floor New York, New York 10104 Telephone: (212) 440-4400 Facsimile: (212)440-4401
Matthew C. Phillips, Esq. Oregon Bar No. 040979 (pro hac vice application to be filed) Email: matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 560 Portland, Oregon 97223
Telephone: (503)964-1129 Facsimile: (503)517-9919
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulIntellectual Ventures v. Rea by PatentBlastEmbedDownloadDescriptionIntellectual Ventures v. ReaIntellectual Ventures v. ReaRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedZeidman v. Reaby PriorSmartZeidman v. Patent & Trademark Office Directorby PatentBlastIndex Systems v. Reaby PatentBlastHennessy Industries v. Perfect Equipmentby PriorSmartBioGeneriX v. Kapposby PriorSmartAllstate Insurance Company v. Reaby PatentBlastUSPTO Notice of Appeal Formby ferris532Firmenich v. Kapposby PriorSmartEisai R&D Management v. Reaby PriorSmartFirmenich v. Reaby PatentBlastCellerant Therapeutics v. Reaby PriorSmartAmerican Covers v. Brandywine Product Group Internationalby PriorSmartCopy Right Form Mailby WICKED MERCYsb001600by Echyk VenotionBaxter International Et. Al. v. Reaby Naim Islam12-10289-MLWby barzilay123Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Reaby PriorSmartNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 45by Justia.comNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 178by Justia.comBayer Intellectual Property et. al. v. Reaby PriorSmart16-01-15 ACB CCIAby Florian MuellerYeda Research and Development v. Kapposby PriorSmartAndrew Magdy Kamal's Generator Designby RecordSetterAbbott Cardiovascular Systems v. Reaby PriorSmartP+L Systems v. Bird Barrier Americaby PatentBlastJayBird Gear v. Freebitby PriorSmartGraco - Petition for IPR D621by slbursteinIncyte v. Reaby PatentBlastSimilar to Intellectual Ventures v. ReaZeidman v. ReaZeidman v. Patent & Trademark Office DirectorIndex Systems v. ReaHennessy Industries v. Perfect EquipmentBioGeneriX v. KapposAllstate Insurance Company v. ReaUSPTO Notice of Appeal FormFirmenich v. KapposEisai R&D Management v. ReaFirmenich v. ReaCellerant Therapeutics v. ReaAmerican Covers v. Brandywine Product Group InternationalCopy Right Form Mailsb001600Baxter International Et. Al. v. Rea12-10289-MLWSanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. ReaNetflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 45Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - Document No. 178Bayer Intellectual Property et. al. v. Rea16-01-15 ACB CCIAYeda Research and Development v. KapposAndrew Magdy Kamal's Generator DesignAbbott Cardiovascular Systems v. ReaP+L Systems v. Bird Barrier AmericaJayBird Gear v. FreebitGraco - Petition for IPR D621Incyte v. ReaLabrada Bodybuilding Nutrition v. Thermolife InternationalAmsafe Bridport v. FatzerIntellectual Ventures v. Rea