Broadband iTV, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

IPR2020-01267 (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.

IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARBES, 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 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,026 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’026 patent”).
Petitioner contends that we “misapprehended or overlooked key facts and
legal precedent, and abused [our] discretion when evaluating and weighing”
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 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 an Expanded Panel should review and reverse the
[Decision] to maintain uniformity in how panels apply Board precedent.”
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.
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 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 2–3. 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
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 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
(1:20-cv-717-ADA), “the AT&T case”); and
(3) a PACER report of the current docket in the Texas case.
Ex. 2034, 6:15–25. 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.”
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 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. Patent Owner argues that good cause exists
to admit this evidence because “it is highly relevant to the Fintiv analysis”
and “provides critical new information about the state of the parallel
litigation, showing significant investment under factor 3 and nearly complete
overlap under factor 4.” Req. Reh’g 2–3. Patent Owner also notes that the
invalidity contentions were both served in January 2021, and, therefore,
could not have been submitted with Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
(Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”), which was filed in October 2020. Req. Reh’g 3.
Having considered Patent Owner’s arguments on rehearing and 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.

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 3. Patent Owner also argues that we should consider
the AT&T case in evaluating the second and fourth Fintiv factors. Id. For
the reasons explained below, we disagree that we should exercise discretion
to deny institution.

IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
6
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. 13 (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 4–5 (citing Prelim. Resp. 14–16, 18).
We disagree. Rather, we evaluated Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence
in making our determination. See Dec. 12–14.
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. 17.
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. 14–18. In arriving at this
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 17.
We also were
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
7
not persuaded that we should instead refer to the trial date of the
AT&T case (for which Petitioner’s motion to transfer is
irrelevant), at least because Patent Owner does not present any
evidence of duplication between Petitioner’s contentions in this
proceeding and the invalidity contentions of the defendants in
that case (factor 4).
Id. at 18 n.5.
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 6–7.
Patent Owner also alleges that there is overlap between issues in this
proceeding and in the AT&T case. Id. at 7–8.
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.”), 7–8 (citing Exs. 1021–1023, 1033, 1034); Dec. 14–15. Patent
Owner countered that these orders “permit different divisions in the Western
District [of Texas] to make their own determinations whether to proceed
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
8
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. 19–20 (citing Exs. 1033, 1034, 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. 3003
(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. 18. 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. 18–21.
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 9–12. We address each of these in turn.

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
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
9
dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but overlooked the parties’ investment in
briefing and arguing these matters. Req. Reh’g 9. We did not overlook
these efforts; we expressly addressed them. Dec. 18–20. 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. 23. Again, we considered, and did not overlook, what Patent Owner
cited.
Patent Owner further argues that, “other than acknowledging 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. 19). 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. 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 1026, which is a cover document for Patent Owner’s
preliminary infringement contentions in the Texas case. Exhibit 1026 itself
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 1026 states that Patent Owner’s “preliminary
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
10
infringement contentions are attached hereto as Exhibits 1–4,” each of which
corresponds to a different patent involved in inter partes reviews: Exhibit 1
(the ’026 patent), 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 (U.S. Patent No. 9,648,388 B2
(IPR2020-01359)). Only the first contentions pertaining to the ’026 patent
have been entered in this proceeding (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. 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 that final invalidity
contentions already would have been served. 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
overlapping invalidity considerations and should be considered when
evaluating efficient use of judicial resources.” Req. Reh’g 10 (citing Prelim.
Resp. 16). The defendants in the AT&T case are not parties to this
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
11
proceeding.3 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 7.
We note, though, that because the final invalidity contentions in the AT&T
case were served on January 29, 2021 (after our Decision on January 21,
2021), there could not have been any efforts by Patent Owner in reviewing
them at the time of the 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. 20–21. On rehearing, Patent Owner argues that this is
inconsistent with a precedential decision of the Board. Req. Reh’g 11–12
(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
filed the Petition “less than 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

3 We recognize that the defendants in the AT&T case recently filed a
petition challenging the ’026 patent and motion for joinder as parties to the
instant proceeding in Case IPR2021-00556. No decision on either filing has
been made at this time, however.
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
12
proposed claim terms for construction and briefing claim construction issues
in the Texas case.” Dec. 20–21. 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. 21.

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 even though one of the challenged claims in this proceeding
is not asserted in the Texas case, “there is overlap as to the claims and the
asserted grounds based on Gonder, Son, and Kelts” and, therefore, “this
factor weighs in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.”
Dec. 21–23. On rehearing, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s final
invalidity contentions show overlap with the asserted grounds based on
Gonder, Son, and Kelts. Req. Reh’g 7–8 (citing Ex. 2031). That is what we
found in the Decision, however.
Patent Owner further argues that overlap between issues in this
proceeding and the AT&T case supports exercising discretion to deny. Id.
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
13
In particular, Patent Owner argues that the defendants in the AT&T case
allege obviousness based on Son and “a related Kelts patent” (U.S. Patent
No. 8,046,804 B2) and stated that they became aware of Son from
Petitioner’s petitions seeking inter partes review. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 2032,
2, 14, 16, 18, 25, 27, 29, 38–47). We have reviewed the cited invalidity
contentions and find only minimal overlap between the issues raised in the
AT&T case and this proceeding. Petitioner relies on Gonder as allegedly
teaching the majority of the limitations of the claims, and relies on
combinations with Son and Kelts for certain limitations. See Dec. 46–60;
Pet. 35–57. The defendants in the AT&T case rely on a set of base
references (which does not include Gonder), and cite Son and the “related
Kelts patent” (not Kelts) in combination with those references. Ex. 2032,
38–47. Thus, there is less overlap with respect to the AT&T case than we
already determined existed with respect to the Texas case. Regardless, we
already determined that Fintiv factor 4 weighs in favor of exercising
discretion to deny. Dec. 21–23. 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. 23. We then determined that “this
factor is, at most, slightly in favor of exercising our discretion to deny the
Petition.” Id. On rehearing, Patent Owner argues that we inappropriately
“collaps[ed] the fifth Fintiv factor into the second.” Req. Reh’g 13–14.
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
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. In any
event, we determined that this factor, at most, slightly favors exercising
discretion to deny. Dec. 23.
Moreover, 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 6–8,
10. 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. On
rehearing, Patent Owner argues that we “misapprehended or overlooked that
[the] Petition controls the proceeding and the Panel is not free to cure
[Petitioner’s] defective Petition.” Req. Reh’g 14–15. Patent Owner
contends that “[t]he Panel correctly held that [the CableLabs specification] is
not properly incorporated into Gonder, . . . which should have ended the
inquiry into the merits, or at least demonstrated sufficient weakness to find
factor 6 neutral or favoring denial,” but we instead “crafted [our] own
unpatentability theory that Gonder teaches the disputed elements without
[the CableLabs specification] and that [the CableLabs specification] can be

IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
15
used to show common knowledge/common sense.” Id. at 15 (citing
Pet. 21–23, 41, 53–57; Dec. 51–53).
We disagree with Patent Owner. Petitioner in certain portions of its
Petition relies on disclosures from both Gonder and the CableLabs
specification, arguing that the CableLabs specification is incorporated by
reference in Gonder. See Dec. 48–49, 51–53 (citing Pet. 21–23, 53–57).
As explained in the Decision, we are not persuaded based on the current
record that the CableLabs specification is incorporated by reference, but are
persuaded that Petitioner’s contentions regarding the cited disclosures of
Gonder itself are sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing. Id. at 49–53. That preliminary finding (i.e., not relying on
anything in the CableLabs specification) is sufficient alone for purposes of
institution. We also noted, though, that “based on the current record, we do
not see why, even if the CableLabs specification is not incorporated by
reference in Gonder itself, it cannot be considered as showing the
background knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had in reading Gonder,” noting, for example, certain arguments in the
Petition and supporting declaration pertaining to the CableLabs specification
as a known standard. Id. at 52–53 (citing Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105, 172).
Accordingly, we “encouraged [the parties] to address the relevance of the
CableLabs specification in their papers during trial.” Id. In doing so, we
merely identified an issue that would benefit from further development at
trial. We did not create a new theory of unpatentability or rely on “common
knowledge” or “common sense” as teaching a missing claim limitation, as
Patent Owner contends. See Req. Reh’g 15.
Petitioner had the burden at the institution stage to show a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing, and we found that burden met with respect to
IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 B2
16
Petitioner’s arguments regarding the disclosure of Gonder (without the
CableLabs specification). See Dec. 49–53. The relevance of Petitioner’s
additional arguments regarding the CableLabs specification can be
addressed during trial (when Patent Owner will have the opportunity, for
example, to cross-examine Petitioner’s declarant), and our ultimate decision
on whether unpatentability is proven by a preponderance of the evidence
will be based on the complete record at the end of trial.

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.

IPR2020-01267
Patent 10,028,026 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