`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`104677-5008-815
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00017
`Patent 8,061,598
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(c) AND 27 C.F.R. § 42.222(b) OR, IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, FOR COORDINATION OF SCHEDULE, AND
`REQUEST FOR SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME FOR
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`
`CBM2015-00017
`104677-5008-815
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`Patent Owner’s Opposition (Paper 10, “Opp.”) simply fails to address the clear
`
`reasons for joinder here. Rather than the two particular proceedings concerning the ’598 pa-
`
`tent actually at issue in this Motion—proceedings whose joinder Patent Owner does
`
`not and cannot suggest would yield anything other than a more just, speedy, and inex-
`
`pensive result than two separate proceedings—the Opposition points instead to Peti-
`
`tioner’s filings challenging two other patents that have not yet been instituted for trial—
`
`proceedings Petitioner has not asked to join with the instituted trial on the ’598 pa-
`
`tent1 (or to coordinate with the three other instituted trials the Board has already de-
`
`termined to coordinate). This is mere misdirection, as is Patent Owner’s extended
`
`unauthorized briefing (e.g., Opp. 3, 5-7) on its own separate argument—since disposed
`
`of by the Board (see, e.g., Papers 13, 16)—that Petitioner was not permitted to make
`
`any changes outside the claim charts when submitting its corrected petition. The Op-
`
`position offers no substantive objection to joinder, which should be granted.
`
`I.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`In its Opposition, Patent Owner does not actually dispute Petitioner’s support
`
`for joinder, including that joinder of the two proceedings involving the ’598 patent
`
`will serve to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of those trials, see 37
`
`
`1 The unsupported suggestion that this proceeding should actually be delayed to coor-
`
`dinate with these later petitions on different patents (Opp. at 8-9) is but one more at-
`
`tempt at diversion from the instant Motion, aimed solely at prejudicing Petitioner.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`
`CBM2015-00017
`104677-5008-815
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`C.F.R. § 42.1(b), and Petitioner’s detailed explanation of (1) why joinder is appropri-
`
`ate, including this petition’s presentation of new § 101 arguments relying on Supreme
`
`Court authority (Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)) issued
`
`after the original petitions but addressing overlapping claims and subject matter, and
`
`new § 103 arguments with art (including art discovered after the original petition was
`
`filed) providing explicit disclosures the Board found lacking from the art previously
`
`presented (e.g., CBM2014-00108, Paper 8, 12-15) in combination with art overlapping
`
`with that in the instituted proceeding; (2) the new grounds of unpatentability asserted;
`
`(3) the minimal impact on the existing trial schedule;2 and (4) the potential simplifica-
`
`tion of briefing and discovery for the two ’598 proceedings.3 See Mot. (Paper 3) 4-8.
`
`Patent Owner neither contradicts any of these reasons nor explains how joinder of
`
`the proceedings at issue could be inappropriate—instead, making arguments extraneous
`
`
`2 Patent Owner has made no complaint about the specific proposed schedule, which
`
`will enable efficient joinder even if it is further adjusted.
`
`3 The Board determined to coordinate the schedules of the instituted trials on the
`
`’221, ’458, ’598, and ’317 patents, and Petitioner asks to continue that coordination, as
`
`the efficiencies it provides will be preserved and amplified by joinder. There is not,
`
`however, an instituted proceeding on the ’720 and ’772 patents, and Patent Owner’s
`
`attempt to invoke those separate petitions to delay this trial is unsupported; it also
`
`cannot negate the efficiencies of resolving the two ’598 proceedings together.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`to the actual issues at hand.
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`104677-5008-815
`
`First, though joinder of these two particular proceedings would certainly be less
`
`expensive and more efficient than non-joinder for both the parties and the Board, Pa-
`
`tent Owner inexplicably complains, instead, about the PTO fees incurred by Petitioner
`
`in filing petitions on six separate patents (Opp. 4)—fees that, of course, have nothing
`
`to do with whether joinder here is appropriate. Patent Owner’s supposed concerns
`
`about costs borne and paid by Petitioner in accordance with the Board’s rules (or the
`
`supposed “economic power” a party displays simply by following those rules) are
`
`nothing but crocodile tears—and these PTO-established fees pale in comparison to
`
`Patent Owner’s demand for almost $1 billion dollars of damages in parallel district
`
`court litigation on these patents.4
`
`Second, while joinder will most efficiently resolve the distinct but overlapping
`
`issues of these two particular ’598 patent proceedings in a single case rather than in two
`
`separate challenges (and while continuation of the Board’s coordination with the oth-
`
`er instituted proceedings on the ’221, ’458 and ’317 patents offers additional efficien-
`
`cies), Patent Owner argues joinder of the ’598 matters should be denied because, it
`
`suggests, Petitioner “stretched out” various filings. Opp. 4. This is both false and ir-
`
`relevant: far from dragging its feet, Petitioner, after advising Patent Owner well in ad-
`
`
`4 Equally specious are Patent Owner’s complaints about CBM proceedings by other
`
`parties (e.g., Opp. 4)—made possible only by Patent Owner’s choice to sue them.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`
`CBM2015-00017
`104677-5008-815
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`vance,5 timely filed the instant petition and Motion for Joinder within 30 days of the
`
`initial ’598 institution decision, and similarly moved rapidly on the patents involved in
`
`other instituted trials for which coordination is sought. The Board has the opportuni-
`
`ty here, through joinder, to address in one proceeding new arguments not presented
`
`in the already-instituted ’598 proceeding but involving significant overlap in subject
`
`matter. Contrary to Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner’s filing of multiple peti-
`
`tions is somehow improper (e.g., Opp. 3), Petitioner quite properly presented new ar-
`
`guments in the new petition that the Board has not previously considered, but that
`
`now can most efficiently and appropriately be addressed together with the original peti-
`
`tion.
`
`Finally, though Patent Owner never disputes the efficiencies that would result
`
`in joining the two proceedings involving the ’598 patent, especially with respect to
`
`discovery (or from coordinating with the instituted proceedings involving the ’221,
`
`’458 and ’317 patents), Patent Owner suggests that, because Petitioner also filed slight-
`
`ly later petitions on two different patents for which no trial has yet been instituted, the
`
`present ’598 schedule must somehow be delayed to the default schedule for those lat-
`
`er petitions before any efficiencies would be achieved. See Opp. 8-9. This unsupport-
`
`
`5 Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s baseless speculation (Opp. 4), Petitioner has made
`
`clear from the outset, to Patent Owner and the Board, that Petitioner intended to pur-
`
`sue Patent Owner’s actively litigated claims not instituted for trial, and it has done so.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`
`CBM2015-00017
`104677-5008-815
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`ed request nonsensically ignores the benefits of the requested joinder, and would also
`
`unfairly prejudice Petitioner in light of the parallel district court litigation that is rapid-
`
`ly approaching trial—indeed, the parties have a pre-trial conference scheduled for
`
`January 6. Petitioner filed the originally-instituted petitions to challenge the ’598 pa-
`
`tent on April 1, 2014 and this new ’598 petition within 30 days of their institution, on
`
`October 30 (see Paper 7; CBM2014-00108, Papers 3, 8). There is no basis for delaying
`
`these ’598 proceedings (or, for that matter, the proceedings on the other patents for
`
`which trial has been instituted—the ’221, ’458 and ’317 patents) to a later date when
`
`Petitioner sought to challenge other patents not yet subject to trial before the Board.
`
`Patent Owner has offered none, other than its desire for delay, and the Board should
`
`reject this unjustified attempt to prejudice Petitioner.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons and those in Petitioner’s Motion, the Board should
`
`grant the requested joinder, or, at minimum, the requested coordination of schedules.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By:/J. Steven Baughman/
`J. Steven Baughman (Lead Counsel)
`Megan Raymond
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Ching-Lee Fukuda (Backup Counsel)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB correspondence: ROPES & GRAY LLP,
`IPRM – Floor 43, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199-3600
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`104677-5008-815
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PETITIONER’S RE-
`
`PLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(c)
`
`AND 27 C.F.R. § 42.222(b) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR COORDINA-
`
`TION OF SCHEDULE, AND REQUEST FOR SHORTENED RESPONSE
`
`TIME FOR PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE was served on Jan-
`
`uary 2, 2015, to the following Counsel for Patent Owner via e-mail, pursuant to the
`
`parties’ agreement concerning service:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`4300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700
`Arlington, VA 22203
`Telephone: (703) 894-6406
`Facsimile: (703) 894-6430
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`jsd@dbjg.com
`docket@dbjg.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Smartflash LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Darrell W. Stark
`Darrell W. Stark
`
`
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP