`
`
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10627 Filed 05/17/23 Page 2 of 18
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Paper 11
`571-272-7822
`Date: May 5, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10628 Filed 05/17/23 Page 3 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner” or “Mercedes”) filed a
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter partes review of
`claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’512 patent”).
`Concurrently, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder seeking to be joined as a
`party to Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01539 (“Volkswagen IPR”). Paper 3 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Neo
`Wireless LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6,
`“Prelim. Resp.”) and a Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 7
`(“Opp.”)). Petitioner subsequently filed a Reply in Support of its Motion for
`Joinder. Paper 9 (“Mot. Reply”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the
`reasons that follow, we determine that institution of inter partes review is
`warranted on the same grounds instituted in the Volkswagen IPR and grant
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Mercedes-Benz
`Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG; and Mercedes-Benz AG as real
`parties in interest. Pet. 2. Patent Owner identifies only itself as a real party
`in interest. Paper 5, 1.
`C. Related Matters
`Petitioner lists several civil actions in which Neo Wireless, LLC is the
`plaintiff and the ’512 patent is involved. Pet. 2–4. Patent Owner lists ten
`current proceedings involving the challenged patent and nine proceedings
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10629 Filed 05/17/23 Page 4 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`that, according to Patent Owner, have been terminated. Paper 5, 1–3. The
`current proceedings include:
`In Re: Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation, No. 2:22-md-03034 (E.D.
`Mich.);
`Neo Wireless LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
`11403 (E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-11402 (E.D.
`Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Tesla Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11408 (E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. General Motors Co., No. 2:22-cv-11407 (E.D.
`Mich.);
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
`11406 (E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 2:22-
`cv-11404 (E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Nissan North America Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11405
`(E.D. Mich.);
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-11769
`(E.D. Mich.); and
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:22-cv-11770 (E.D. Mich.).
`Id. at 1–2.
`Both parties also identify IPR2022-01539. Pet. 4; Paper 5, 2. We
`additionally note that Ford Motor Company has filed a petition substantially
`identical to the instant Petition, along with a motion for joinder as a
`petitioner in IPR2022-01539. IPR2023-00764, Papers 1, 3.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10630 Filed 05/17/23 Page 5 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`D. The ’512 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’512 patent issued on March 30, 2021, from an application filed
`on September 4, 2020, which is a continuation of several previously filed
`applications, the earliest of which was filed on January 20, 2005. Ex. 1001,
`codes (22), (45), (63), 1:10–29. The ’512 patent also claims priority to a
`provisional application filed on January 29, 2004. Id. at code (60), 1:29–31.
`The ’512 patent provides “methods to define the transmission formats
`of the cell-specific and common pilot subcarriers that enable a receiver to
`perform different system functions.” Ex. 1001, 3:37–40. According to the
`’512 patent, “signal reception can be improved by manipulating phase values
`of the pilot subcarriers and by using power control.” Id. at 3:43–45.
`The ’512 patent describes that, for “multi-carrier wireless
`communications,” such as “orthogonal frequency division multiple access
`(OFDMA),” “network information provided by a portion of total subcarriers
`such as pilot subcarriers” facilitates “important system functions such as
`frequency synchronization and channel estimation.” Ex. 1001, 1:36–38,
`3:55–57. The “pilot subcarriers are divided into two different groups
`according to their functionalities.” Id. at 3:10–12. “The first group is called
`‘cell-specific pilot subcarriers,’ and will be used by the receiver 104 to
`extract information unique to each individual cell.” Id. at 3:17–19. “The
`second group is termed ‘common pilot sub-carriers,’ and are designed to
`possess a set of characteristics common to all base stations of the system.”
`Id. at 3:25–27.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`The ’512 patent includes claims 1–30, all of which Petitioner
`challenges. Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 8, 15, and 23 are
`independent. Reproduced below is claim 1.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10631 Filed 05/17/23 Page 6 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`1.
`An orthogonal frequency division multiple access
`(OFDMA)-compatible base station that uses subcarriers in a
`frequency domain and time slots in a time domain, the OFDMA-
`compatible base station comprising:
`a plurality of antennas; and
`a transmitter operably coupled to the plurality of antennas;
`the transmitter configured to:
`insert first pilots of a first type onto a first plurality of
`subcarriers, wherein the first pilots are cell-specific pilots; and
`insert data and second pilots of a second type onto a
`second plurality of subcarriers;
`wherein at least some subcarriers of the first plurality of
`subcarriers or the second plurality of subcarriers are beam-
`formed; and
`the plurality of antennas configured to transmit the first
`plurality of subcarriers and the second plurality of subcarriers in
`at least one of the time slots;
`wherein the second type is different than the first type and
`wherein the first pilots do not interfere with the second pilots.
`Ex. 1001, 9:46–67.
`F. Asserted Prior Art and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
`Petitioner identifies the following references as prior art in the
`asserted grounds of unpatentability:
`Exhibit
`Name
`Reference
`1005
`Tong
`US 7,120,395 B2, issued Oct. 10, 2006
`1007
`Li
`US 2002/0163879 A1, published Nov. 7, 2002
`1017
`Smee
`US 2004/0131007 A1, published July 8, 2004
`1006
`Ketchum US 2004/0179627 A1, published Sept. 16, 2004
`1004
`Kim
`WO 2004/049618 A1, published June 10, 2004
`Pet. 5–6. Petitioner states that “all references relied upon herein are prior art
`as of January 29, 2004,” “[t]he ‘512 patent’s earliest possible priority date.”
`Id. at 5–6. According to Petitioner, Kim, Tong, Ketchum, and Smee are
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10632 Filed 05/17/23 Page 7 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`prior art under, at least, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); and Li is prior art
`under, at least, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 1 Id. at 6.
`Petitioner also provides a Declaration of Mr. Bruce McNair.
`Ex. 1038. Petitioner states that it cites to the Declaration which “adopt[s]
`the opinions set forth in EX1003, the declaration of Dr. Paul Min submitted
`in IPR2022-01539,” and Petitioner “notes there are corresponding, identical
`opinions in Dr. Min’s declaration.” Pet. 1 n.1 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶ 2). Patent
`Owner provides a Declaration of William P. Alberth Jr. Ex. 2001.
`G. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–30 are unpatentable on the following
`grounds:
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1–30
`1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, 18, 20, 22,
`23, 25, 26, 28, 302
`5, 12, 21, 29
`Pet. 6.
`
`35
`U.S.C. § References/Basis
`103(a)
`Kim, Tong
`103(a)
`Ketchum, Li
`103(a)
`Ketchum, Li, Smee
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Joinder for purposes of an inter partes review is governed by
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which states:
`
`
`1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’512 patent claims priority to an application filed before
`that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in this Decision are to
`their pre-AIA versions. See also Pet. 5–6 (stating but not conceding that
`“[t]he ’512 patent’s earliest possible priority date is January 29, 2004”).
`2 Petitioner omits claim 30 for the second ground in its “Statutory Grounds
`for the Challenge” but provides arguments for claim 30. Pet. 6, 78.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10633 Filed 05/17/23 Page 8 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under
`section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary
`response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing
`such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`parties review under section 314.
`“To join a party to an instituted [inter partes review (IPR)], the plain
`language of § 315(c) requires two different decisions.” Facebook, Inc. v.
`Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “First,
`the statute requires that the Director (or the Board acting through a
`delegation of authority) . . . determine whether the joinder applicant’s
`petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314.” Id. “Second, to effect
`joinder, § 315(c) requires the Director to exercise his discretion to decide
`whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant.” Id.
`A. Whether the Petition Warrants Institution
`Petitioner states that its “Petition is substantively the same as the
`Volkswagen IPR petition,” that “[t]here are no substantive differences
`between the Petition and the Volkswagen IPR petition,” and that “Petitioner
`has copied the substance of the Volkswagen IPR petition and its
`accompanying expert declaration.” Mot. 2, 5, 6.
`Petitioner also states that “[w]hile Petitioner uses its own expert
`declarant, the expert’s declaration agrees with the facts, analysis, and
`conclusions of the expert declaration in the Volkswagen IPR and does not
`contain any new opinions not included in the Volkswagen IPR expert
`declaration.” Mot. 6. Petitioner further states that its “expert Mr. McNair
`would not be relied on if the Volkswagen IPR petitioner’s expert remains
`available.” Id. at 8.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10634 Filed 05/17/23 Page 9 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`Patent Owner notes that the Petition “is of the sort that has been called
`a ‘copycat’ petition, for it is nearly identical to the Petition filed in IPR2022-
`01539.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Patent Owner responds that “much as the Petition
`in this case repeats the same grounds as those set forth in [IPR2022-01539],
`the present preliminary response repeats the same reasons and same
`supporting evidence set forth in Patent Owner’s preliminary response in that
`case.” Id. at 3; see also id. at 9–24 (arguing, for the first ground, that
`Petitioner fails to show “cell-specific pilots” and “beam-formed”), 24–46
`(arguing, for the second ground, that Petitioner fails to show “cell-specific
`pilots” and “in at least one of the time slots”).
`We instituted an inter partes review in the Volkswagen IPR. See
`IPR2022-01539, Paper 7 (“1539 Dec. on Inst.”). We incorporate our
`previous analysis regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability, and
`conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’512 patent challenged in
`the Petition for the same reasons. See 1539 Dec. on Inst. 9–55. Therefore,
`we determine that the Petition warrants institution of inter partes review on
`all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a)
`(“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to
`proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability
`asserted for each claim.”); see also SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
`1359–60 (2018).
`B. Whether to Join Petitioner as a Party to the Volkswagen IPR
`Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant
`joinder is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. We
`determine whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into
`account the particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural issues,
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10635 Filed 05/17/23 Page 10 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`and other considerations. When exercising that discretion, we are mindful
`that patent trial regulations, including the rules for joinder, must be
`construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`Any motion for joinder must be filed “no later than one month after
`the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is
`requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner filed its Petition and Motion
`for Joinder before we decided whether to institute review in IPR2022-01539,
`and, thus, the Motion is timely.
`As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing
`entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). A
`motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing
`and discovery may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); PTAB E2E
`Frequently Asked Question H5, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/
`ptab/ptab-e2e-frequently-asked-questions.
`1. Motion for Joinder
`Petitioner argues that joinder is appropriate because it “challenges the
`same claims, on the same grounds, and relies on the same prior art as the
`Volkswagen IPR petition.” Mot. 2; see also id. at 4–5 (arguing similarly).
`Petitioner also argues that “good cause exists for joinder, so that the Board,
`consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), can efficiently ‘secure the just, speedy,
`and inexpensive resolution’ of this proceeding and the Volkswagen IPR.”
`Id. at 5. Petitioner further argues that “[t]his is Petitioner’s first challenge
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10636 Filed 05/17/23 Page 11 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`against the ’512 patent at the PTAB, and there is no risk of prejudice or
`abuse.” Id.
`Petitioner states that it “does not seek to introduce grounds or claims
`not currently in the Volkswagen IPR and seeks only to join the proceeding if
`and as instituted.” Mot. 6. Petitioner also contends that its Petition “does
`not seek to broaden the scope of the Volkswagen IPR” and “[t]here are no
`new issues for the Board to address. Id. at 6–7. According to Petitioner, “no
`additional burden would be created for the Board” and “[j]oinder would
`therefore lead to an efficient resolution.” Id. at 2–3.
`“Petitioner stipulates that if joinder is granted, it will act as an
`‘understudy,’” “will not assume an active role unless the Volkswagen IPR
`petitioner ceases to participate in the proceeding,” and “agrees to take an
`‘understudy’ role, which will simplify briefing and discovery.” Mot. 3, 7.
`Petitioner agrees, upon joining the Volkswagen IPR, that the
`following conditions . . . shall apply so long as the Volkswagen
`IPR petitioner remains an active party:
`a. all filings by Petitioner in the Volkswagen IPR shall be
`consolidated with the filings of the Volkswagen IPR petitioner,
`unless a filing concerns issues solely involving Petitioner;
`b. Petitioner shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not
`instituted by the Board in the Volkswagen IPR, or introduce any
`argument or discovery not introduced by the Volkswagen IPR
`petitioner;
`c. Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent
`Owner and the Volkswagen IPR petitioner concerning discovery
`and depositions; and
`d. Petitioner at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross
`examination, or redirect time beyond that permitted under either
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between Patent Owner and
`the Volkswagen IPR petitioner.
`Id. at 7–8.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10637 Filed 05/17/23 Page 12 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`Petitioner also states that it “will not rely on expert testimony beyond
`that submitted by the Volkswagen IPR petitioner unless the Volkswagen IPR
`petitioner is terminated from the case prior to any necessary depositions,”
`and “Mr. McNair would not be relied on if the Volkswagen IPR petitioner’s
`expert remains available.” Mot. 8. Petitioner argues that “the proposed
`joinder will neither unduly complicate the Volkswagen IPR nor delay its
`schedule,” “will not unduly prejudice any party,” and “will not add any new
`substantive issues, delay the schedule, burden deponents, or increase
`needless filings.” Id. at 3.
`2. Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`Patent Owner responds that, if review is instituted in IPR2022-01539,
`joinder should be granted “only with further limits” in addition to the ones
`quoted above from the Motion. Opp. 1–2 (citing Mot. 3, 7–8), 9–10. The
`further conditions are:
`(1)That Mercedes be denied any right to participate in the joined
`proceeding, including filing papers, engaging in discovery, or
`participate in depositions and oral argument, jointly or otherwise,
`without first obtaining authorization from the Board; In other
`words, Patent Owner requests that the Board strictly hold
`Mercedes to a silent understudy role;
`(2) That Mercedes’ exhibits, including its separate purported
`expert declaration (Ex. 1038), not be added to the record of this
`case, and that Mercedes have no right as understudy petitioner to
`submit any separate exhibits or other materials; and
`(3) If the Board rejects Patent Owner’s condition (1) immediately
`above, and grants Mercedes a right to jointly participate, that
`Volkswagen be shown to have accepted the role Mercedes has
`proposed that it will play.
`Id. at 2.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10638 Filed 05/17/23 Page 13 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`Patent Owner argues that without “clarity on what ‘understudy’
`means,” there would be “unacceptable risks of making the original case, if
`instituted, substantially more complicated, expensive, and unfair.” Opp. 2.
`Patent Owner would oppose granting joinder without the express
`clarifications provided in its further conditions. Id. at 3, 9–10.
`In Patent Owner’s view, Petitioner “has not promised not to submit its
`own separate evidence” and has done so already by submitting its own
`declaration. Opp. 3. Patent Owner argues “there is no apparent reason why
`[Petitioner] should be given any right to take any action in the proceedings
`without prior express Board permission.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that
`Petitioner “should be granted no right to file any exhibits in the joined case”
`and has “not agree[d] to not file separate exhibits,” such as its own
`declaration. Id. at 5–6 (citing Mot. 3; Ex. 1038). Patent Owner notes that
`Petitioner “has not limited itself, or Volkswagen, from presenting different
`arguments with respect to [Petitioner]’s separate witness.” Id. at 6. Patent
`Owner further argues that Petitioner’s exhibits “should not become part of
`the record of the joined proceedings.” Id.
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s promises of cooperation are
`unsubstantiated and insufficient, and Petitioner “does not aver that
`Volkswagen has agreed to abide by them.” Opp. 7–8 (quoting Mot. 7–8).
`Patent Owner describes “risks of disruption” if Volkswagen has not agreed.
`Id. at 8–9.
`3. Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Joinder
`Petitioner replies that, “[i]nstead of a substantive opposition,” Patent
`Owner argues for additional conditions that should not be imposed if joinder
`is granted. Mot. Reply 1. Petitioner argues that there would be no
`additional burden on Patent Owner, as described in the Motion. Id. at 1–2
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10639 Filed 05/17/23 Page 14 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`(citing Mot. 6–8). Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s additional
`conditions “are essentially duplicative of the restrictions that Petitioner
`already proposes on its participation in the Volkswagen IPR and are thus
`unnecessary” because they “are adequate to eliminate the chance of
`duplicative briefing and any additional burden in the Volkswagen IPR.”
`Id. at 2.
`“Petitioner agrees to rely entirely on, and be bound by, the declaration
`and deposition of Dr. Paul Min in the Volkswagen IPR, assuming that the
`Volkswagen IPR petitioner does not terminate its IPR before Dr. Min is
`deposed.” Mot. Reply 3. Petitioner also states that it “is willing to meet and
`confer with the Board and all involved parties regarding the conduct of the
`joined proceeding, if necessary.” Id. at 4.
`4. Determining that Joinder is Appropriate
`Upon considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence presented,
`we are persuaded that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join
`Petitioner to the Volkswagen IPR. Petitioner challenges the same claims
`that are challenged in the Volkswagen IPR on the same grounds using the
`same prior art and evidence. Petitioner explicitly agrees that it will take an
`“understudy role” in the Volkswagen IPR, and has shown that the trial
`schedule will not be affected at all by joinder. See Mot. 7–8.
`At this stage, Patent Owner’s further conditions are not necessary.
`See Opp. 2. If Petitioner fails to abide by its own conditions, then Patent
`Owner should meet and confer with Petitioner and contact the Board, if the
`parties cannot come to an agreement.
`For the reasons discussed above, joinder to the Volkswagen IPR
`would result in the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of Petitioner’s
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10640 Filed 05/17/23 Page 15 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`challenge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner as a party to the Volkswagen IPR.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 B2 is instituted with
`respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(b), inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 B2
`shall commence on the entry date of this Decision, and notice is hereby
`given of the institution of a trial;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 3)
`with IPR2022-01539 is granted, and Petitioner is hereby joined as petitioner
`in IPR2022-01539;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds on which trial in IPR2022-
`01539 were instituted are unchanged, and no other grounds are added in
`IPR2022-01539;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered in
`IPR2022-01539 (Paper 8) shall govern the trial schedule in IPR2022-01539;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s role in IPR2022-01539 shall
`be limited as stated by Petitioner in the Motion for Joinder (Paper 3) unless
`and until Volkswagen is terminated from that proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2022-01539 shall
`be changed to reflect joinder of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC as petitioner in
`accordance with the attached example;
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10641 Filed 05/17/23 Page 16 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`the record of IPR2022-01539; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that all further filings shall be made in
`IPR2022-01539.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10642 Filed 05/17/23 Page 17 of 18
`IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Celine J. Crowson
`Joseph J. Raffeto
`Scott Hughes
`Helen Y. Trac
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`celine.crowson@hoganlovells.com
`joseph.raffeto@hoganlovells.com
`scott.hughes@hoganlovells.com
`helen.trac@hoganlovells.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax
`Edward Hsieh
`Parham Hendifar
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`NeoWireless_IPRs@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`Hamad M. Hamad
`CALDWELL, CASSADY, & CURRY PC
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145-4, PageID.10643 Filed 05/17/23 Page 18 of 18
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. and
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, 1
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC filed a motion for joinder and a petition in
`IPR2023-00079, which were granted, and, therefore, has been joined as
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`