Opinion ID: 4533209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: incorporation by reference; conception

Text: We first address GAS’s challenge to the Board’s exclusion of arguments incorporated from documents other than GAS’s briefing. Decisions related to compliance with the Board’s procedures are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An abuse of discretion is found if the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Id. The rule prohibiting incorporation by reference in IPR proceedings is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (emphasis added): (3) Incorporation by reference; combined docu- ments. Arguments must not be incorporated by ref- erence from one document into another document. Combined motions, oppositions, replies, or other combined documents are not permitted. The prohibition against incorporation of arguments from other documents serves various policy goals, including to “minimize the chance that an argument may be Case: 19-1856 Document: 50 Page: 6 Filed: 05/11/2020 6 GEN. ACCESS SOLS., LTD. v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. overlooked” and to “eliminate[] abuses that arise from incorporation and combination.” Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,617 (Aug. 14, 2012). Otherwise, the Board would be forced to “play archeologist with the record” and search for arguments that might have made outside of the parties’ briefing. Id. (citing DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999)). We do not see any abuse of discretion in the Board’s enforcement of its rules. The “patentee bears the burden of establishing that its claimed invention is entitled to an earlier priority date than an asserted prior art reference.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, GAS had to present a case to establish prior conception of every claim limitation. GAS’s briefing failed to meet this burden. GAS urges that the following paragraph from its patent owner response “sets forth GAS’s argument that Mr. Struhsaker conceived of the subject matter of the patents in suit prior to July 21, 2000”: With respect to the specific claims in the ‘801 [sic] patent, Mr. Struhsaker had completely conceived of the claimed subject matter by at least May 24, 2000. (Ex. 2472, ¶ 15). As demonstrated in his Dec- laration, and the claim chart attached as Attach- ment A, Mr. Struhsaker had memorialized his conception in a document called the Last Mile Business Overview as of that date. (Ex. 2457). In Ap- pendix A, Mr. Struhsaker maps to the specific claim elements of the ‘810 patent to the material Exhibit 2457. Appellant’s Br. at 14 (citing J.A. 1281); see also J.A. 4110 (providing an equivalent paragraph for the ’916 patent). But this paragraph fails to explain with any specificity how inventor Struhsaker had conceived of the limitations Case: 19-1856 Document: 50 Page: 7 Filed: 05/11/2020 GEN. ACCESS SOLS., LTD. v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. 7 recited in the various patent claims. Instead, GAS’s patent owner response makes only the general allegation that the claimed limitations can be found “in a document called the Last Mile Business Overview.” See id. To identify GAS’s substantive arguments, the Board was forced to turn to a declaration by Struhsaker, and further to delve into a twenty-nine-page claim chart attached as an exhibit. This exercise of “playing archaeologist with the record” is precisely what the rule against incorporation by reference was intended to prevent, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,617, and the Board was within its discretion in excluding the arguments made in the claim chart. And although GAS argues that excluding the claim chart arguments was an abuse of discretion because GAS’s briefing fell under the page limits, GAS’s voluntary decision to violate a procedural rule does not make the Board’s enforcement of that rule an abuse of discretion. Without the benefit of the arguments improperly incorporated from the claim chart attached to Struhsaker’s declaration, GAS was left with its broad allegation that Struhsaker had conceived of the claimed invention by May 24, 2000 and its conclusory citation to the entirety of the Last Mile Business Overview document. 2 See Appellant’s 2 To the extent GAS argues that it presented additional argument in its surreply that cured the conclusory assertions in its response, see Reply at 12–13, that argument is waived for failure to present it in GAS’s opening brief on appeal. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived.” (citing Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1320–21 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2005))). Moreover, even assuming as true that GAS “presented additional argument directed to the [modulation Case: 19-1856 Document: 50 Page: 8 Filed: 05/11/2020 8 GEN. ACCESS SOLS., LTD. v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. Br. at 14. GAS’s assertion that the claim chart contains “evidence” rather than “argument” effectively concedes that the only arguments it offered on prior conception were set forth in its briefing. See, e.g., id. (“The Struhsaker Declaration, and the claim chart included as part of the Declaration, constitute evidence that supports the argument in GAS’s brief.”). We agree with the Board that the conclusory assertions in GAS’s patent owner response are insufficient to meet GAS’s burden of establishing prior conception. 3