`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`_
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Agilysys, Inc. et al.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Ameranth, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`______________________
`
`Petition No. CBM2014-00016
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`_________________________
`______________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO AMERANTH’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECONSTITUTE PETITIONER TO
`EXCLUDE APPLE INC.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.20
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\247385425.1
`
`
`
`Petition No. CBM2014-00016
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In its Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Reconstitute (Paper 16),
`
`Ameranth, Inc. (“Ameranth”) neither disputes that Petitioner was unaware of the
`
`Board’s requirement of proceeding with a single lead counsel nor identifies any
`
`reason why Petitioner should have been aware of this requirement. Additionaly,
`
`Ameranth’s claimed procedural barriers to granting the relief requested in the
`
`Motion to Reconsitute (Paper 15) are illusory. In arguing such alleged barriers,
`
`Ameranth ignores provisions in the rules that both allow the Board to determine a
`
`proper course of conduct for situations not specifically covered in the rules and
`
`also give the Board discretion to waive or suspend any rule when appropriate.
`
`Moreover, Ameranth’s claims of prejudice as a result of being “required” to file
`
`two sets of reponses to identical petitions filed by Apple are likewise illustory
`
`because Ameranth does not explain why its preliminary responses could not also
`
`be identical. To the contrary, the Board can put procedures in place to prevent any
`
`undue prejudice to the patent owner in joined proceedings. Meanwhile,
`
`Ameranth’s proposal only seeks to impose unnecessary estoppel on Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) and preclude Apple from proceeding with a counsel of its own choosing.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board grant its Motion and permit
`
`Apple to file identical petitions and requests to join these proceedings.
`
`WEST\247385425.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition No. CBM2014-00016
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. There Is No Procedural Barrier to Granting Petitioner’s Motion.
`Ameranth’s Opposition relies on a perceived lack of a provision in the rules
`
`governing this Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review that would allow the
`
`Board to grant the relief requested in the Motion to Reconstitute Petitioner.
`
`However, this argument ignores 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a), which provides that the
`
`“Board may determine a proper course of conduct in a proceeding for any situation
`
`not specifically covered by this part,” and 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b), which provides that
`
`the “Board may waive or suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may
`
`place conditions on the waiver or suspension.” Thus, this clear language in the
`
`rules provides a sound basis for the relief requested in Petitioner’s Motion.
`
`B. Ameranth Does Not Dispute That Petitioner Did Not Know of the
`Single-Counsel Requirement.
`
`Importantly, Ameranth does not dispute that Petitioner, including Apple, did
`
`not know of the requirement for a single lead counsel to represent all parties to the
`
`original Petitions. Additionally, Ameranth does not argue or cite to any authority
`
`for the proposition that Petitioner should have known of such requirement prior to
`
`filing the original Petitions. Therefore, particularly in light of the prior precedent
`
`in IPR2013-00026, in which multiple lead counsel for multiple petitioners were
`
`permitted, the single-counsel requirement was contrary to Petitioner’s good-faith
`
`expectations. Under these circumstances, Petitioner respectfully submits that
`
`WEST\247385425.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition No. CBM2014-00016
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`
`
`permitting Apple to proceed with its own counsel as Apple would have proceeded
`
`had it known of the single counsel requirement is reasonable.
`
`C.
`
`Permitting Petitioner to Reconstitute to Exclude Apple With
`Later Joinder Will Not Prejudice Ameranth.
`
`In its Opposition, instead of pointing to actual injury that would allegedly
`
`result from Petitioner’s request, Ameranth merely hypothesizes potential harm
`
`should the Board proceed in a manner other than that requested by Petitioner.
`
`However, the potential harms identified by Ameranth are illusory.
`
`First, Ameranth’s arguments on page 2 of its Opposition as to the potential
`
`effect that granting Petitioner’s Motion may have on future parties ignores the fact
`
`that such future parties will be on notice of the single counsel requirement in view
`
`of the Board’s prior order and its decision on this Motion. Ameranth’s arguments
`
`also ignore the fact that the relief being sought by Petitioner is to allow Apple to
`
`file identical petitions and motions to join this proceeding—not to walk away from
`
`it.
`
`Second, Ameranth’s argument on page 3 of its Opposition regarding the
`
`need for it to “respond to two separate sets” of papers is likewise illusory. No
`
`obligation exists requiring Ameranth to file any preliminary responses, and in view
`
`of the fact that the requested relief seeks to allow Apple to file identical petitions,
`
`the burden of filing identical responses if Ameranth so chooses is negligible.
`
`WEST\247385425.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition No. CBM2014-00016
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`
`
`Finally, the potential for prejudice with respect to proceedings after
`
`Ameranth’s preliminary responses is also negligible. In similar cases where the
`
`Board has granted joinder motions, it has instituted procedural safeguards to
`
`prevent such joined proceedings from becoming overly cumbersome or prejudicial.
`
`For example, the Board has mandated that joined petitioners work together to
`
`allocate between them the time in depositions and the oral hearings usually allotted
`
`to a single petitioner. See Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solns., Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00385 (Paper 17); Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00256
`
`(Paper 10). The Board has further required the joined petitioners to file
`
`consolidated papers with the second petitioner (which in this case would be Apple)
`
`only being allowed to file seven additional pages of briefing in such limited
`
`situations where it disagreed with the first petitioner. See id. Petitioner seeks
`
`nothing more here. Therefore, as the Board has previously held, Ameranth’s claim
`
`of prejudice is without merit.
`
`D. Ameranth’s Proposal Will Unduly Prejudice Apple.
`As discussed in Petitioner’s Motion, entering an adverse judgment against
`
`Apple would result in substantial prejudice to Apple. On the other hand, granting
`
`Petitioner’s Motion will result in no real prejudice to Ameranth. In reality, such a
`
`scenario will leave Ameranth in no worse position that it is now. Coupled with the
`
`fact that Petitioner’s Motion was the result of unexpected developments in this
`
`WEST\247385425.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition No. CBM2014-00016
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`
`
`CBM review, Ameranth’s proposed prejudicial solution should be rejected and
`
`Petitioner’s Motion should be granted.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s Motion to Reconstitute
`
`
`
`Petitioner to Exclude Apple Inc. should be granted and Apple should be permitted
`
`to file identical petitions accompanied by joinder motions.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard S. Zembek
`Richard S. Zembek
`Reg. No. 43,306
`
`Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Tel: 713-651-5151
`Fax: 713-651-5246
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Gilbert A. Greene
`Reg. No. 48,366
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512.474.5201
`Fax: 512.536.4598
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`WEST\247385425.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition No. CBM2014-00016
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`
`
`
`AMERANTH’S OPPOSITION
`
`TO
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION
`
`TO
`
`RECONSTITUTE PETITIONER TO EXCLUDE APPLE INC. UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.20 was served on March 21, 2014 by causing it to be sent by email to counsel
`
`for the Patent Owner at the following email addresses:
`
`John W. Osborne
`OSBORNE LAW LLC
`Email: josborne@osborneipl.com
`
`Michael D. Fabiano
`FABIANO LAW FIRM, P.C.
`Email: mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard S. Zembek
`Richard S. Zembek
`Reg. No. 43,306
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\247385425.1
`
`6
`
`