Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: August 6, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00120
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU,
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Covered Business Method Patent Review
`and Granting Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: August 6, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00120
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`____________
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU,
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Covered Business Method Patent Review
`and Granting Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00120
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), filed a Petition requesting covered
`
`business method patent review of claim 7 (the “challenged claim”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,033,598 (Ex. 1001, “the ’598 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). On
`
`June 1, 2015, Patent Owner, Smartflash LLC (“Smartflash”), filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a
`
`covered business method patent review may not be instituted “unless . . . it is
`
`more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is
`
`unpatentable.”
`
`Concurrently with its Petition, Apple filed a Motion for Joinder
`
`(Paper 3, “Mot.”), seeking to consolidate this case, under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(c), with the covered business method patent review in Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. v. Smartflash, LLC, Case CBM2014-00193 (“the
`
`Samsung CBM”), which was instituted on April 2, 2015. See CBM2014-
`
`00193 (Paper 7, 19) (instituting review of claim 7 of the ’598 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101). Smartflash does not oppose Apple’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`Paper 12, 1.
`
`For the reasons explained below, we institute covered business
`
`method patent review of claim 7 of the ’598 patent and grant Apple’s
`
`Motion for Joinder.
`
`II. INSTITUTION OF COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT
`REVIEW ON SAME GROUND ASSERTED IN THE SAMSUNG
`CBM
`
`In view of the identity of the challenge in the instant Petition and that
`
`instituted in CBM2014-00193, we determine that it is more likely than not
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00120
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`that Petitioner will prevail on its challenge that claim 7 of the ’598 patent is
`
`unpatentable. We previously have determined that the ’598 patent is a
`
`“covered business method patent.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301(a); see also CBM2014-00193, Paper 7, 6–10 (determining that the
`
`’598 patent is eligible for covered business method patent review based on
`
`claim 7); CBM2014-00108, Paper 8, 7–12 (determining that the ’598 patent
`
`is eligible for covered business method patent review based on claim 7);
`
`CBM2015-00017, Paper 22, 9–13 (determining that the ’598 patent is
`
`eligible for covered business method patent review based on claim 7).
`
`Smartflash argues that “Petitioner has cited claim 7 as being the basis
`
`for requesting that a covered business method review be instituted,” but
`
`“claim 7 does not, in fact, meet the requirements for instituting a review.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 8. As noted above, however, the ’598 patent already has been
`
`determined to be a covered business method patent based on claim 7, and
`
`Smartflash fails to identify error in that determination.
`
`Here, Apple challenges the same claim (claim 7) based upon the same
`
`ground, 35 U.S.C. § 101, for which covered business method patent review
`
`was instituted in the Samsung CBM. Pet. 14–27; Mot. 8–9. We have
`
`reviewed the Preliminary Response and are not persuaded that we should
`
`deny institution in this proceeding. In its Preliminary Response, Smartflash
`
`does not attempt to rebut Apple’s contentions regarding the unpatentability
`
`of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Rather, Smartflash argues that the
`
`Petition should be denied because it “disregards the Board’s exercise of
`
`discretion in CBM2015-00017” (Prelim. Resp. 4) and “would be contrary to
`
`the PTAB’s mandate” of securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00120
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`resolution of every proceeding (id. at 5). These arguments are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`As Apple notes (Mot. 7–8), we declined to institute CBM review of
`
`claim 7 in CBM2015-00017 because we had already instituted review of that
`
`claim on § 101 grounds in the Samsung CBM (CBM2015-00017, Paper 22,
`
`16). In its Motion for Joinder, Apple requests that it
`
`be permitted to join these proceedings to ensure that, even if
`Samsung should seek
`to
`terminate
`its
`involvement
`in
`CBM2014-00193 (e.g., as a result of settlement), Apple would
`be able to see the § 101 challenge to claim 7 through to a final
`written decision, since it was not permitted to do so in
`CBM2015-00017.
`
`Mot. 8. Apple notes that in this proceeding, the “petition does not assert any
`
`new grounds of unpatentability. It involves the same ’598 patent and—as
`
`discussed above—the same arguments, evidence and grounds of
`
`unpatentability as the Board instituted in CBM2014-00193.” Id. Apple
`
`further notes that it has “re-filed the same expert declaration submitted by
`
`Samsung, and so this declaration contains no material that is not already in
`
`the previously-filed declaration” and “a second deposition of a second expert
`
`is not necessary.” Id. at 9.
`
`Based on the specific facts of this case, we institute a covered
`
`business method patent review in this proceeding on the same ground,
`
`namely under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as that on which we instituted in the
`
`Samsung CBM for claim 7 of the ’598 patent. We do not institute a covered
`
`business method patent review on any other ground.
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00120
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`
`III. GRANT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`As noted above, Smartflash does not oppose Apple’s request to
`
`consolidate this Petition with the Samsung CBM. Paper 12, 1.
`
`As noted above, the only ground upon which we institute a covered
`
`business method patent review in this proceeding is the challenge to claim 7
`
`of the ’598 patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 101. Apple, thus, does not assert
`
`any new ground of unpatentability that is not already being considered in the
`
`Samsung CBM. Mot. 8. Further, as noted above, Apple represents that the
`
`Petition includes the same arguments and relies on the same evidence and
`
`grounds of unpatentability that were the basis for the Board’s decision to
`
`institute trial in the Samsung CBM. Id. at 8–9.
`
`Under the circumstances, we conclude Apple has demonstrated that
`
`consolidation of the two cases will not unduly complicate or delay the
`
`Samsung CBM, and therefore, we grant Apple’s Motion for Joinder to
`
`consolidate this proceeding with the Samsung CBM. All filings in the
`
`consolidated proceeding will be made by Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) on behalf of Samsung
`
`and Apple. Apple shall not file any separate papers or briefing in these
`
`consolidated proceedings without authorization from the Board. In addition,
`
`Apple shall not seek any additional discovery beyond that sought by
`
`Samsung.
`
`Samsung and Apple shall resolve any disputes between them
`
`concerning the conduct of the consolidated proceedings and shall contact the
`
`Board if any such matters cannot be resolved. No additional burdens shall
`
`be placed on Smartflash as a result of the consolidation.
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00120
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`
`In consideration of the above, we institute a covered business method
`
`patent review in CBM2015-00120 and grant Apple’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the challenge to claim 7 as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 is instituted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is consolidated with
`
`CBM2014-00193;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the ground on which CBM2014-00193
`
`was instituted is unchanged, and no other grounds are instituted in the
`
`consolidated proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in place for
`
`CBM2014-00193 shall govern the consolidated proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, throughout the consolidated proceeding,
`
`any paper, except for a motion that does not involve the other party, shall be
`
`filed by Samsung as a single, consolidated filing on behalf of Samsung and
`
`Apple, and Samsung will identify each such filing as a consolidated filing;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that except as otherwise agreed by counsel,
`
`Samsung will conduct cross-examination and other discovery on behalf of
`
`Samsung and Apple, and that Smartflash is not required to provide separate
`
`discovery responses or additional deposition time as a result of the
`
`consolidation;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that CBM2015-00120 is terminated under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the consolidated proceeding are
`
`to be made in CBM2014-00193;
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00120
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision will be entered
`
`into the record of CBM2014-00193 and CBM2015-00120; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in CBM2014-00193
`
`shall be changed to reflect consolidation with this proceeding in accordance
`
`with the attached example.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00120
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`J. Steven Baughman, Esq.
`Ching-Lee Fukuda, Esq.
`Megan Raymond
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`ApplePTABService-SmartFlash@ropesgray.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Wayne M. Helge
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`whelge@davidsonberquist.com
`Smartflash-CBM@dbjg.com
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-001931
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00120 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
