Court Opinion

ID: 9916172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 16:01:28.791651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:20.689646
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1303   Document: 72     Page: 1   Filed: 01/09/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

           WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC,
                    Appellant

                            v.

 ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS
    LLC, GENERAL MOTORS LLC, FAURECIA
     AUTOMOTIVE SEATING, LLC, MAGNA
            INTERNATIONAL INC.,
                    Appellees
             ______________________

                  2022-1303, 2022-1304
                 ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 00891, IPR2020-00892.
                  ______________________

                Decided: January 9, 2024
                 ______________________

     MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY, AddyHart P.C., Atlanta, GA,
 argued for appellant. Also represented by BRANDON C.
 HELMS, BENJAMIN CAPPEL, ROBERT PATRICK HART, Chi-
 cago, IL; JEFFREY SALMON, Jeffrey W. Salmon Law LLC,
 Glenview, IL; BRAD M. SCHELLER, PETER F. SNELL, Mintz,
 Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., New York,
 NY.
Case: 22-1303     Document: 72     Page: 2    Filed: 01/09/2024

 2                              WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.
                ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

     BENJAMIN LEE KIERSZ, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
 Pittman LLP, McLean, VA, argued for all appellees. Ap-
 pellee Atlas Copco Tools and Assembly Systems LLC also
 represented by WILLIAM ATKINS.

    JOSEPH HERRIGES, JR., Fish & Richardson PC, Minne-
 apolis, MN, for appellee General Motors LLC. Also repre-
 sented by NITIKA GUPTA FIORELLA, Wilmington, DE.

    DEBORAH POLLACK-MILGATE, Barnes & Thornburg
 LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for appellee Faurecia Automotive
 Seating, LLC. Also represented by CHAD S.C. STOVER, Wil-
 mington, DE.

    STEPHANIE P. KOH, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for
 appellee Magna International Inc. Also represented by
 NATHANIEL C. LOVE; SCOTT BORDER, Winston & Strawn
 LLP, Washington, DC.
                ______________________

     Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
     Appellant Wildcat Licensing WI LLC appeals two final
 written decisions issued in related inter partes review pro-
 ceedings. In those proceedings, the United States Patent
 Trial and Appeal Board concluded that the challenged
 claims were unpatentable as obvious. Wildcat contends
 that the Board erred by considering arguments and evi-
 dence not included in the initial inter partes review peti-
 tions, and by finding that the prior art disclosed all of the
 challenged claim limitations. Wildcat also contends that
 the Board improperly precluded it from entering certain ev-
 idence when it denied a set of Wildcat’s discovery motions.
 We affirm.
Case: 22-1303    Document: 72     Page: 3    Filed: 01/09/2024

 WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.                               3
 ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

                        BACKGROUND
     Wildcat owns U.S. Patent Nos. RE47,220 (the “’220 pa-
 tent) and RE47,232 (the “’232 patent”). The challenged pa-
 tents involve systems and methods for a fastening tool that
 employs preprogrammed torque values. See, e.g., ’220 pa-
 tent, Abstract, 1:47–55. 1 The claimed systems thus ensure
 an operator can fasten each fastener (e.g., bolt or screw)
 into position at the correct torque value. Id.
     All of the challenged claims include “Claimed Torque
 Requirements.” The Claimed Torque Requirements are re-
 cited in Claim 31 of the ’220 patent, which Wildcat agrees
 is representative of the challenged claims. Appellant
 Br. 18. Namely, the claimed system must (1) measure the
 torque applied to the fastener at first and second fastening
 locations; (2) store “first and second predetermined torque
 values” in memory; and (3) compare the measured torque
 at each fastening location to the corresponding predeter-
 mined torque value that was stored in memory. See ’220
 patent, 14:25–64.

    1    Both parties predominantly cite to the ’220 patent
 and the underlying proceedings involving that patent, not-
 ing that the proceedings for the ’220 and ’232 patents both
 “contain[ed] the same evidence.” Appellant Br. 5 n.4; Ap-
 pellee Br. 4 n.1. We do the same.
Case: 22-1303     Document: 72     Page: 4    Filed: 01/09/2024

 4                              WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.
                ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

      Central to this appeal is one prior art reference: an ar-
 ticle in a December 1993 IBM Technical Disclosure Bulle-
 tin, titled “Three Dimensional Tooling Position Sensing”
 (“IBM”). See J.A. 292–98. IBM includes one figure depict-
 ing its disclosed system.

 J.A. 297. IBM discloses an electronic torque driver [11]
 linked to a microcontroller circuit [6]. J.A. 298. IBM states
 that the microcontroller circuit [6] can “enable/disable the
 power to the torque driver [11]” and “sense[s] when correct
 torque is achieved by linking into a hall effect sensor in the
 driver 11.” Id. The “controller may be programmed” such
 that an operator must “wait for the set torque to be
 achieved on each screw before moving onto the next screw.”
 Id.
Case: 22-1303     Document: 72      Page: 5    Filed: 01/09/2024

 WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.                                  5
 ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

     In May 2020, Appellees (collectively referred to herein
 as “Atlas”) filed two petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”)
 of claims 31–55 of the ’220 patent and claims 26–49 of
 the ’232 patent (collectively, the “challenged claims”). At-
 las Copco Tools and Assembly Sys. LLC v. Wildcat Licens-
 ing WI LLC, No. IPR2020-00891, 2021 WL 5200230, at *1
 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2021) (“Final Decision”); Atlas Copco
 Tools and Assembly Sys. LLC v. Wildcat Licensing WI LLC,
 No. IPR2020-00892, 2021 WL 5203286, at *1 (P.T.A.B.
 Nov. 1, 2021). Atlas’ petitions asserted that IBM disclosed
 the three Claimed Torque Requirements of measuring,
 storing, and comparing torque values. Regarding the
 “measuring” torque requirement, Atlas argued that IBM’s
 hall effect sensor measures torque. J.A. 1407. Atlas fur-
 ther argued that IBM’s microcontroller disclosed the re-
 maining two Claimed Torque Requirements of storing
 predetermined torque values and comparing the measured
 torque values to the stored predetermined torque values.
 J.A. 1406–07.
     The Board subsequently instituted IPR on all grounds
 raised in the petitions. After institution, the Board re-
 solved discovery disputes, received further briefing on the
 merits, and held a hearing on the merits. The Board issued
 final written decisions finding that IBM discloses the
 Claimed Torque Requirements and concluding that all of
 the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious. Final
 Decision, 2021 WL 5200230, at *1, *21.
     Wildcat appeals, making three principal arguments.
 First, Wildcat asserts that the Board erred by relying on
 evidence and argument that were first introduced in Atlas’
 IPR reply briefs. Second, Wildcat argues that IBM does not
 disclose the Claimed Torque Requirements. Finally, Wild-
 cat argues that the Board improperly denied a set of Wild-
 cat’s motions for discovery and, as a result, erroneously
 precluded Wildcat from presenting evidence in support of
 its positions.    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A).
Case: 22-1303     Document: 72     Page: 6    Filed: 01/09/2024

 6                              WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.
                ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
      We review decisions related to compliance with Board
 procedures for an abuse of discretion. Ericsson Inc. v. In-
 tell. Ventures I LLC, 901 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
 see also Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th
 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Resolution of discovery mo-
 tions and challenges to the responsiveness of a petitioner’s
 post-petition argument and evidence involve compliance
 with Board procedures. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23, 42.52; see Er-
 icsson, 901 F.3d at 1379; Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom
 Corp., 887 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Whether post-
 petition argument and evidence presents a new invalidity
 theory implicates the Board’s statutory authority and is
 subject to de novo review. Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
 84 F.4th 990, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
     Obviousness is a question of law that we review de
 novo, with underlying factual issues that we review for
 substantial evidence. ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes,
 Inc., 813 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Factual issues
 include the “scope and content of the prior art, differences
 between the prior art and the claims at issue, the level of
 ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and any objective indicia
 of non-obviousness.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355,
 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan-
 sas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). Substantial evidence is
 such evidence that a reasonable mind might consider ade-
 quate to support the Board’s conclusion. In re Applied Ma-
 terials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
                         DISCUSSION
                    I. Atlas’ Reply Briefs
     We first consider Wildcat’s claim that the Board im-
 properly relied on certain testimony and evidence asserted
 by Atlas after it had filed its IPR petitions. In particular,
 Wildcat argues that Atlas presented new invalidity
Case: 22-1303     Document: 72      Page: 7    Filed: 01/09/2024

 WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.                                  7
 ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

 theories and related evidence in its reply briefs. See Appel-
 lant Br. 40–41, 47–48; Reply Br. 16–19. We disagree with
 Wildcat.
     It is well-established that the scope of an IPR is limited
 to the grounds set forth in the initial petition, 35 U.S.C.
 § 312(a)(3), making it improper for the Board to deviate
 from the grounds in the petition and consider late-raised
 theories of unpatentability.        Corephotonics, 84 F.4th
 at 1002. But we have held that a petitioner’s reply brief
 may not present a new theory of unpatentability in certain
 circumstances where the reply brief asserts that the chal-
 lenged claims would have been obvious over the same com-
 bination of prior art identified in the petition. Apple Inc. v.
 Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In
 particular, we held a prior art theory in a reply brief was
 not new where the same aspects of the same prior art ref-
 erences were used to support the same invalidity argument
 made in its petition. Id.; see Corephotonics, 84 F.4th
 at 1009. Beyond the restriction that a reply brief must
 avoid introducing a new ground, which is a statutory con-
 straint, a reply brief is subject to a second, separate re-
 striction relating to compliance with Board procedures: a
 reply brief is limited to material that is responsive to the
 patent owner’s arguments.          Corephotonics, 84 F.4th
 at 1008.
     Atlas asserted in its petitions that IBM’s hall effect
 sensor “measures” torque. J.A. 1407. Wildcat responded
 that a hall effect sensor alone cannot measure torque. See
 Final Decision, 2021 WL 5200230, at *16. In its reply
 briefs, Atlas cited deposition testimony of its expert, Dr.
 Gregory Davis. J.A. 980–81. Dr. Davis clarified that a per-
 son of ordinary skill in the art would consider IBM’s hall
 effect sensor to collect the data necessary to measure
 torque and thus form part of a torque transducer that can
 actually output a measured torque value. See J.A. 2487
 (103:9–10). Atlas also introduced additional prior art
Case: 22-1303     Document: 72     Page: 8    Filed: 01/09/2024

 8                              WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.
                ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

 references regarding hall effect sensors’ use in the meas-
 urement of torque. See J.A. 976.
     As in Apple, Atlas’ reply briefs did not introduce evi-
 dence involving a new theory, but merely confirmed Atlas’
 assertions in its petitions concerning the functionality of a
 hall effect sensor. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, 76 F.4th
 at 1382. Moreover, Atlas’ citation to new prior art refer-
 ences was made in response to Wildcat’s arguments on that
 point, to show “the knowledge that a skilled artisan would
 bring to bear” in reading the same aspects of the same ref-
 erences that were the focus of the petition. Anacor
 Pharms., Inc v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
     Under these circumstances, we cannot say that Atlas
 presented evidence or arguments in support of a shifting or
 new invalidity theory or went beyond responding to Wild-
 cat’s arguments. See Apple, 949 F.3d at 706. We hold
 therefore that the Board did not abuse its discretion by con-
 sidering the evidence and arguments raised in Atlas’ reply
 briefs.
             II. Claimed Torque Requirements
     We next address the Board’s findings that IBM dis-
 closed each of the three Claimed Torque Requirements, be-
 ginning with the “measuring” requirement.
     First, Wildcat argues that the “measuring” torque re-
 quirement is not disclosed by IBM. It asserts that IBM
 teaches the use of a mechanical, clutch-controlled tool that
 does not measure torque at all. See Final Decision, 2021
 WL 5200230, at *16–17. Under Wildcat’s interpretation,
 this clutch-controlled tool simply relies on a compression
 spring that causes the clutch to mechanically disengage
 when the fastening tool has approximately reached a pre-
 set torque. The Board rejected Wildcat’s view and deter-
 mined that IBM teaches the “measuring” torque limitation.
    The Board’s determination that IBM teaches the
 “measuring” torque limitation is supported by substantial
Case: 22-1303    Document: 72      Page: 9    Filed: 01/09/2024

 WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.                                9
 ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

 evidence, including IBM’s disclosure and Atlas’ expert’s
 testimony. As the Board explains, IBM discloses “a screw
 torque sequence verification system.” Final Decision, 2021
 WL 5200230, at *20 (quoting IBM, J.A. 298). IBM provides
 that “[t]he problem is to ensure” a series of screws “are
 tightened to a specific torque in a specific sequence.”
 J.A. 298. IBM describes using a microcontroller “to sense
 when correct torque is achieved by linking into a hall effect
 sensor in the driver 11.” Id. This is depicted in IBM’s sin-
 gle image, reproduced above, showing a dotted line labeled
 “TORQUE” with an arrow pointing into microcontroller 6.
 J.A. 297. Once the microcontroller is properly pro-
 grammed, IBM states that an operator must “wait for the
 set torque to be achieved on each screw before moving onto
 the next screw.” J.A. 298.
     The Board credited Dr. Davis’ opinion that IBM’s dis-
 closure of a microcontroller linked to a hall effect sensor
 supports that IBM’s system performs an electronic meas-
 urement of torque, rather than simply being a mechanical,
 clutch-controlled system.        See Final Decision, 2021
 WL 5200230, at *21 (citing, among other testimony,
 J.A. 2489–90 (105:10–106:23)). Dr. Davis opined that a mi-
 crocontroller is “capable of making decisions” and “compar-
 isons with sensed data,” allowing it to “do a more
 intelligent job of controlling” than could be done by an im-
 precise mechanical tool. J.A. 2489 (105:17–21). Dr. Davis’
 testimony and IBM’s disclosure, including its references to
 sensing a “correct torque” and achieving a “set torque” at a
 particular fastening location, support the Board’s conclu-
 sion that IBM teaches more than simply mechanically dis-
 engaging when the same torque has been reached for any
 fastener. We hold that the Board’s determination that IBM
 teaches “measuring” torque is supported by substantial ev-
 idence.
     Second, Wildcat argues that the Board’s finding that
 IBM’s discussion of “set torque” discloses the claimed re-
 quirement of storing first and second predetermined torque
Case: 22-1303    Document: 72     Page: 10    Filed: 01/09/2024

 10                             WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.
                ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

 values in memory is unsupported by substantial evidence.
 Appellant Br. 61. Wildcat asserts that IBM teaches a
 clutch-controlled tool that has no need for a predetermined
 torque value. Id.
     We agree with the Board that IBM provides that its
 microcontroller [6] may be programed such that an opera-
 tor must “wait for the set torque to be achieved to each
 screw before moving onto the next screw.” Final Decision,
 2021 WL 5200230, at *20; see also J.A. 298. Dr. Davis ex-
 plains that a microcontroller with “RAM”—i.e. “random ac-
 cess memory” or temporary storage space—allows the
 system to “move the decision process in[to] the microcon-
 troller to gain precision.” J.A. 2490 (106:6–15). In other
 words, the microcontroller is programmed with the “set
 torque” so that it is able to confirm that “set torque” has
 indeed been reached by the torque driver. We conclude
 that the Board’s finding that IBM discloses having the set
 torque value stored in order to determine when that set
 torque has been reached for a particular screw is supported
 by substantial evidence.
      Third, Wildcat argues that the Board failed to address
 the “comparing” limitation. Appellant Br. 56. We disagree.
 The Board discusses the parties’ arguments regarding the
 “comparing” limitation and cites to evidence relating to this
 limitation. See, e.g., Final Decision, 2021 WL 5200230,
 at *17–18. While the Board does not conduct an explicit
 analysis of this claim limitation, we may affirm the Board
 “if we may reasonably discern that it followed a proper
 path, even if that path is less than perfectly clear.” In re
 Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quo-
 tations omitted). That is the case here. See J.A. 2488–89
 (104:21–105:9); see also Final Decision, 2021 WL 5200230,
 at *21 (citing the same passage of Dr. Davis’ testimony).
 As Dr. Davis observed, “comparison” is logically necessary
 for the system to determine whether the “sensed torque” is
 the same as the “set torque.” See J.A. 2484 (100:15–25).
 The basis for the Board’s finding that IBM discloses the
Case: 22-1303     Document: 72    Page: 11    Filed: 01/09/2024

 WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.                               11
 ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

 “comparing” limitation is reasonably discernable and sup-
 ported by substantial evidence.
                III. Wildcat’s Discovery Motions
     Wildcat contends that the Board’s denial of a set of mo-
 tions for discovery was error because it effectively barred
 Wildcat from submitting evidence and argument during
 the IPR proceedings.
     Wildcat moved in each IPR “for Additional Discovery
 Under 37 C.F.R. 42.51(b)(2) and for Authorization to Com-
 pel Production of Additional Discovery.”         J.A. 1160.
 Through these motions, Wildcat sought additional discov-
 ery from various entities, including Atlas and non-party
 entities. See J.A. 1169. Significantly, Wildcat acknowl-
 edged that it was “already in possession of most of the re-
 quested documents,” J.A. 1168, and even had the
 permission of one non-party to use their documents in the
 IPR proceedings, J.A. 1169. These documents had been
 produced in a co-pending district court litigation under an
 operative protective order. J.A. 1168.
     The Board denied the motions to compel. J.A. 1024.
 Among other factors, the Board determined that Wildcat
 had not shown “that it cannot generate equivalent infor-
 mation by other means, such as by using the district court’s
 protective order to ask the district court to use the docu-
 ments requested in the motions and enter only those docu-
 ments in these proceedings that tend to show nexus,
 commercial success, and copying.” J.A. 1038. Wildcat re-
 quested rehearing in both proceedings to allow discovery.
 J.A. 1014. The Board denied the requests. J.A. 787.
      We are not persuaded by Wildcat’s assertions. Wildcat
 was not precluded from seeking permission from the dis-
 trict court to submit documents available to it under a gov-
 erning protective order in the district court litigation. Nor
 did Wildcat ask, outside the context of a motion to compel
 discovery, for the Board’s permission to file under seal the
Case: 22-1303    Document: 72     Page: 12   Filed: 01/09/2024

 12                             WILDCAT LICENSING WI LLC v.
                ATLAS COPCO TOOLS AND ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS LLC

 documents in its possession that were still subject to the
 district court’s confidentiality order. Under these circum-
 stances, we cannot say that the Board abused its discretion
 in its resolution of Wildcat’s discovery motions.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Wildcat’s other arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. We hold that the Board did not
 abuse its discretion in its consideration of arguments and
 evidence submitted after the IPR petitions or in its resolu-
 tion of Wildcat’s discovery motions. The Board’s findings
 that the prior art disclosed the disputed claim limitations
 is supported by substantial evidence. Thus, we affirm the
 Board’s final written decisions concluding that claims 31–
 55 of the ’220 patent and claims 26–49 of the ’232 patent
 were unpatentable as obvious.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 Costs to Appellee.