Privileged & Confidential / Attorney Work Product
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AMERICAN
`HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA
`LLC, SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
`INC., AND VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`CASE IPR: 2014-00291
`_________________________
`
`OPPOSITION TO
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 1
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Nissan Has Presented A Wholly Separate Petition On Non-
`Redundant And Appropriate Grounds. ................................................. 3
`
`Pre-Institution Joinder Is Premature, Prejudicial, And Contrary
`To The Goal Of Providing A Just, Speedy, And Inexpensive
`Resolution To This Proceeding. ............................................................ 7
`
`This Petition Is Represented By Lead Counsel Who Will Serve
`As The Voice For The Proceeding. ..................................................... 10
`
`The Board Has Already Granted The Most Efficient Way To
`Proceed With These Petitions, Which Is To Have A Single
`Panel Of Judges Hear These Petitions. ............................................... 12
`
`Pre-Institution Joinder Is Not Permissible Under The Rules And
`Board Precedent. ................................................................................. 14
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`V.
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 2014 WL 1440411 (CBM2014-00014 March 24,
`2014)..................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 2014 WL 1440419 (CBM2014-00016 March 24,
`2014)..................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Limited, IPR2103-00250, Paper No. 24
`(PTAB Sept. 3, 2013) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`Cruise Control Technologies LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 12-085-GLS
`(D. Del. filed Jan. 15, 2013) ................................................................................... 3
`
`Fandango LLC v. Amerath, Inc.,
`2014 WL 1440401 (CBM2014-00013 March 24, 2014) ..................................... 13
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ............................................................................................... 3, 6, 13
`Rules and Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1. ........................................................................................... 5, 11, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 .............................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122 ................................................................................................... 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72 ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73 ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 15
`
`iii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On April 24, 2014, Cruise Control Technologies LLC, Patent Owner, filed a
`
`Motion for Joinder of the following proceedings: IPR2014-00279, IPR2014-
`
`00280, IPR2014-00281, IPR2014-00289, and IPR2014-00291. (Paper No. 9.)
`
`Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”), along with its listed co-
`
`petitioners, respectfully oppose Patent Owner’s motion for joinder because joining
`
`the proceedings would raise new issues, hinder the petitioners ability to raise the
`
`full scope of arguments presented in each petition, and increase the costs of the
`
`inter partes review.
`
`II.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner has the burden to prove that the following proceedings should
`
`be joined: IPR2014-00279, IPR2014-00280, IPR2014-00281, IPR2014-00289,
`
`and IPR2014-00291. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Patent Owner has failed to meet
`
`this burden and its request should be denied for the following reasons.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`For these purposes, Nissan does not dispute the statement of material facts
`
`included in the Patent Owner’s motion and incorporates them herein by reference,
`
`(Paper No. 9.), and details additional material facts and background below.
`
`Patent Owner filed an infringement suit against Nissan on January 15, 2013,
`
`alleging that Nissan’s actions infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 (“‘464 patent”),
`
`1
`
`

`

`Cruise Control Technologies LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 12-085-GLS
`
`(D. Del. filed Jan. 15, 2013). At roughly the same time, Patent Owner separately
`
`filed suit against Nissan’s co-petitioners. On December 23, 2013, Nissan filed the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review in the present action.1 On April 8, 2014, Patent
`
`Owner filed its Preliminary Response. On the following day, Patent Owner,
`
`Petitioner, and counsel representing petitioners for the other separately filed inter
`
`partes review proceedings participated in a conference call with the Board to
`
`discuss the topic of joinder (or consolidation). On April 10th, the Board issued an
`
`Order “authoriz[ing] Patent Owner to file its requested motion to join the five
`
`related proceedings.” (Paper No. 8, pp. 3-4.) On April 24, 2014, Patent Owner
`
`filed its Motion for Joinder. (Paper No. 9.) Patent Owner’s motion raises the
`
`following issues: (i) the co-petitioners are a single “petitioner”; (ii) co-petitioners
`
`have violated the “one petitioner, one voice” rule and will continue to violate this
`
`so the petitions should be denied; (iii) pre-institution joinder is the most efficient
`
`means to proceed, if the petitions are not denied; (iv) pre-institution joinder is
`
`permissible; and (v) joinder will not prejudice the co-petitioners. Id.
`
`None of the issues raised by the Patent Owner are convincing, and Patent
`
`Owner has failed to meet its burden necessary to warrant granting of its motion as
`
`explained more fully below. Moreover, Patent Owner’s alternative request, that
`
`
`1On January 15, 2014, an Amended Petition was filed in the present action.
`
`2
`
`

`

`the Board deny the petitions, was not authorized by the Board in its April 10th
`
`Order. 2
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The America Invents Act addresses joinder of inter partes review
`
`proceedings in 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which states:
`
`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 partes
`review under section 314.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added). These rules are to be “construed to secure
`
`the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.1.
`
`B. Nissan Has Presented A Wholly Separate Petition On Non-
`Redundant And Appropriate Grounds.
`
`Below is a chart summarizing the grounds raised (claims, basis, and
`
`
`2 It is of note that the Board only authorized the Patent Owner to file a motion
`seeking joinder. Patent Owner has stepped outside of this Board’s authorization to
`now also ask the Board to deny the petitions. This is contrary to the authority
`granted by the Board and improper. Such a filing and request should have been
`made in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. As such, Nissan asks that all such
`sections of Patent Owner’s Motion be stricken and denied, e.g., Sections II.B-C of
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Joinder. Further, to the extent Patent Owner repeats
`arguments throughout the Motion for Joinder, Nissan will not reiterate its positions
`in an effort to be concise, direct, and brief.
`
`3
`
`

`

`references) in each of the petitions showing that the ‘463 patent is invalid (the
`
`present petition is in bold for your convenience).
`
`Petition
`
`Lead Petitioner Expert
`
`Claims
`
`Nissan
`
`IPR2014-
`00291
`
`
`David A.
`McNamara
`
`1-5, 12-
`16, 18-19,
`21, 25-31,
`and 34-36
`
`Claims
`1-3, 5, 12-
`14, 18-19,
`25-27, 29-
`31, and
`34-
`36
`3-5, 12,
`15-16, 21,
`and 28
`4
`
`IPR2014-
`00279
`
`Subaru of
`America, Inc.
`
`David A.
`McNamara
`
`IPR2014-
`00280
`
`Toyota Motor
`North America,
`Inc.
`
`Dr. Paul
`Green
`
`1–5, 12–
`16, 18–
`21, 23,
`25–31,
`and 34–
`36
`
`1-5, 12-
`16, 18,
`19, 21,
`25-28,
`and 34-36
`
`4
`
`12
`
`Grounds
`Basis Reference
`102
`Prometheus
`
`103
`
`Prometheus in
`view of Narita
`
`103
`
`Prometheus in
`view of Celsior
`102 Mizuno
`
`103 Mizuno in view
`of Ordinary
`Skill in the Art
`102 Miura
`
`102 Diamante
`Owner’s Manual
`
`1–3, 5,
`12–14,
`18, 21,
`25–26,
`and 34–36
`4, 19–20,
`23, and
`27–28
`12–16,
`21, 25–
`27, and
`29–31
`1-5, 12-
`16, 21,
`25-28,
`and 34-36
`15, 16, 21 103 Diamante
`Owner’s Manual
`in view of
`Preview
`Distance
`Control Manual
`103 Diamante
`Owner’s Manual
`in view of
`Watanabe
`18 and 19 102 Watanabe
`
`

`

`1-5, 12-
`16, 18-19,
`21, 25-28
`and 34-36
`
`17, 20,
`22-24 and
`27
`17, 20,
`22-24 and
`27
`1-5, 12,
`15, 34
`1-5, 12,
`15, 34
`
`18-19, 26
`and 29-31
`17, 20,
`23-24
`20
`13, 18, 25
`and 26
`
`102 Narita
`
`103 Narita
`
`103 Narita In View
`Of Beiswenger
`
`103 Narita In View
`Of APA
`103 Narita In View
`Of The NHTSA
`Report
`102 Nagashima
`
`103 Narita in view
`of Nagashima
`103 Nagashima
`102 Yoshimitsu
`
`1, 2, 12,
`14, 15, 27
`and 34-36
`
`103 Yoshimitsu in
`view of 1984
`Nissan 300zx
`Owner’s Manual
`19 and 29 103 Yoshimitsu in
`view of
`Nagashima
`12 and 13 102 Yagihashi
`1-5, 14,
`103 Yagihashi in
`26-28,
`view of APA or
`and 34-36
`Yoshimitsu
`
`Daniel A.
`Crawford
`
`
`
`IPR2014-
`00281
`
`Ford Motor
`Company, Jaguar
`Land Rover
`North America
`LLC, Volvo Cars
`of North America
`LLC,
`
`IPR2014-
`00289
`
`American Honda
`Motor Co., Inc.
`
`David A.
`McNamara
`
`1-5, 12-
`15, 18-20,
`25-28,
`and 34-36
`
`
`The Board has applied a four part test in assessing the propriety of joinder as
`
`follows, asking whether the various petitions reflect: (1) the same parties; (2) the
`
`same patents or claims; (3) the same prior art; and (4) the same declarants. See,
`
`e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Limited, No. IPR2103-00250, Paper No.
`
`5
`
`

`

`24 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2013). As this chart clearly shows, Nissan’s Petition
`
`seeks invalidity of different claims of the ‘463 patent based on different grounds
`
`and references than the petitions filed by Nissan’s co-petitioners. The declarants
`
`are also not all the same. The only overlapping aspect of Nissan’s Petition is the
`
`list of the petitioners and the patent-at-issue, however, as Petitioners previously
`
`explained to this Board during the April 9, 2014 teleconference, each petition
`
`identifies a unique lead and back-up counsel who will speak for that petition absent
`
`settlement by one of the parties.
`
`Section 315 of Title 35 of the United States Code governs the relationship
`
`between civil actions and inter partes review, including joinder and multiple
`
`proceedings. Turning first to joinder, the grant of joinder is discretionary and used
`
`solely to join parties to an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). This statutory
`
`grant does not contemplate joinder being used to incorporate non-redundant issues
`
`into a single action because to do so would be contrary to the policy behind trial
`
`practice and procedure before the Board, i.e., “just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1. For the Board to grant joinder
`
`in the present action, the Board would also require the co-petitioners to address all
`
`of the grounds presented in the page limit requirements, which is unduly
`
`burdensome since co-petitioners bear the burden of proof (discussed further
`
`below).
`
`6
`
`

`

`With respect to multiple proceedings, this is both contemplated by and
`
`allowed by the regulations. The “Director may determine the manner in which the
`
`inter partes review or other proceeding or matter may proceed, including providing
`
`for stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d). Here, the Board has opted to have a single panel of judges
`
`hear the petitions filed by the co-petitioners. As noted by the Board, this has
`
`addressed Patent Owner’s initial concern that multiple proceedings would impact
`
`the efficiency of the Board. (See Paper No. 8, p. 3.) As such, this panel has the
`
`ability to determine how these actions should proceed, e.g., coordination of
`
`discovery, claim construction, etc., and will be in the best position to make these
`
`determinations as this action moves forward.
`
`As such, Patent Owner’s motion for joinder should be denied and the
`
`multiple actions should be allowed to proceed.
`
`C.
`
`Pre-Institution Joinder Is Premature, Prejudicial, And Contrary
`To The Goal Of Providing A Just, Speedy, And Inexpensive
`Resolution To This Proceeding.
`
`i.
`
`Pre- Institution Joinder Is Premature.
`
`Patent Owner asks the Board to present Nissan and its co-petitioners with an
`
`ultimatum to either “remove themselves from the proceeding by requesting adverse
`
`judgments or by settling with Patent Owner and filing joint motions to terminate
`
`the proceeding with respect to each company.” This request is premature,
`
`7
`
`

`

`unwarranted, and inappropriate. The prematurity of this request is evidenced by
`
`Patent Owner having to turn to regulations relating to oral argument, decision and
`
`settlement, which is putting the cart before the horse, at best. (See Paper No. 9, p.
`
`15 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.72; 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)).) The panel should be allowed
`
`time to institute the Petition and then render any decisions necessary for the just,
`
`speedy, and efficient handling of this proceeding, including joinder.
`
`ii.
`
`Pre-Institution Joinder Is Prejudicial And Contrary To The
`Goal Of Providing A Just, Speedy, And Inexpensive
`Resolution To This Proceeding.
`
`First, while Patent Owner contends that Nissan has placed itself in a
`
`compromising position, this is not the case. Patent Owner filed suit against all of
`
`the co-petitioners in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, thus
`
`notifying the co-petitioners of the existence of the ‘463 patent and forcing each co-
`
`petitioner to conduct analysis of both invalidity and non-infringement for the same.
`
`It would be unjust and a disservice to the public to deny Nissan and its co-
`
`petitioners the opportunity to fully challenge the ‘463 patent. Patent Owner cannot
`
`begin a litigious process and then attempt to thwart Nissan and its co-petitioners’
`
`efforts to reach determinations on validity of the ‘463 patent which will either
`
`resolve or limit the issues to be addressed at trial.
`
`Second, Nissan would be prejudiced for the following reasons, which will be
`
`addressed in turn below: (i) due to the unfair limits joinder would place on
`
`8
`
`

`

`Nissan’s ability to meet its burden of proof, (ii) to the extent joinder will increase
`
`costs, and (iii) to the extent joinder will hinder efficiency.
`
`A party requesting relief in an inter partes review bears the burden of proof
`
`to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). This
`
`burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). It
`
`would be unduly burdensome and practically impossible for Nissan to present its
`
`arguments on invalidity if joined with the other petitions because of the page limits
`
`as well as lack of redundancy and overlap between references. Patent Owner
`
`contends that, in total, the pending petitions proffer more than 180 separate
`
`grounds of unpatentability. Accordingly, forcing Nissan to adhere to the page
`
`limits of a single paper addressing all of these issues may deprive Nissan the
`
`ability to meet its burden, strictly due to procedural issues. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.24.
`
`This would also limit the Board’s ability to fully consider the arguments related to
`
`the validity of ‘463 patent.
`
`Rather than decreasing the cost of the proceedings, Nissan believes joinder
`
`will actually increase the overall expense of this proceeding and cause
`
`complications. Nissan should be able to fully use all of the pages in each paper
`
`submitted to this Board to present its strongest arguments. The alternative is to
`
`require Nissan and its co-petitioners to debate the contents of each filing, leading
`
`to an iterative process that will increase attorneys’ fees for Nissan and its co-
`
`9
`
`

`

`petitioners.
`
`Depositions of declarants will also be overly cumbersome. For example, if
`
`all of the co-petitioners are required to question a deponent in a single deposition,
`
`this will unnecessarily force the petitioners to allocate precious time among the
`
`parties for such questioning, despite the limited overlap of prior art references in
`
`each petition.
`
`The presently filed petitions by Nissan’s co-petitioners should not be
`
`compared to one another because each is a wholly separate petition presenting non-
`
`overlapping and non-redundant grounds and each deserves the full amount of time
`
`possible for this panel to review and render a substantive determination. As such,
`
`it is highly unlikely that granting Patent Owner’s motion for joinder will garner the
`
`efficiency it alludes to before this panel.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it would be improper to join all of these
`
`proceedings together. The Board should deny Patent Owner’s motion for joinder
`
`because at this juncture joinder would be contrary to the “just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding” as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.1.
`
`D. This Petition Is Represented By Lead Counsel Who Will Serve As
`The Voice For The Proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Nissan has violated the “one petitioner, one
`
`voice” rule but this is not true. First, no such rule has been pronounced by the
`
`Board. Second, the trial practice before the Board requires that “[i]f a party is
`
`10
`
`

`

`represented by counsel, the party must designate a lead counsel and a back-up
`
`counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(a). Section II.C. of Nissan’s Petition did just that by designating lead
`
`counsel and back-up counsel. (Paper No. 6.) For purposes of filings in this inter
`
`partes review proceeding, lead counsel for Nissan has handled all filings and
`
`participated in a conference with the Board. To date, there has been no confusion
`
`or issue caused by Nissan’s identification of lead counsel and back-up counsel.
`
`The present action differs from other actions before the Board wherein there
`
`were multiple parties having multiple lead counsel and “in which the five members
`
`would speak with one voice, so long as all of them agreed to do so, but that any
`
`member may decide to go its own way and argue or present something
`
`different.” Fandango LLC v. Ameranth, Inc., No. CBM2014-00013, 2014 WL
`
`1440401, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014) (emphasis added). See also Agilysys, Inc.
`
`v. Ameranth, Inc., No. CBM2014-00014 2014 WL 1440411 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24,
`
`2014); Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., No. CBM2014-00016, 2014 WL 1440419
`
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014). However, those are not the facts presently before the
`
`Board. Instead, a single lead counsel has been identified and, for purposes of the
`
`separate proceedings, only one filing will be made on behalf of Petitioner. This
`
`proceeding will be prosecuted by Nissan’s counsel, absent settlement by Nissan.
`
`Also, at no time, has Nissan contended that any of the co-petitioners are able to
`
`11
`
`

`

`present its own argument or take a different action in this proceeding.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner has met the requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a)
`
`and Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are unconvincing.
`
`E.
`
`The Board Has Already Granted The Most Efficient Way To
`Proceed With These Petitions, Which Is To Have A Single Panel
`Of Judges Hear These Petitions.
`
`The one glaring issue with the Patent Owner’s position is that this Petition
`
`does not rely upon the same references as those used in the other pending petitions.
`
`As noted in the chart in Section III.B. of this Opposition, Nissan has presented
`
`wholly separate references and arguments based on the same for this Petition. As
`
`addressed earlier, it would be unduly burdensome and practically impossible for
`
`Nissan to present its arguments on invalidity if joined with the other petitions
`
`because of the page limits and lack of redundancy of arguments.
`
`The Patent Owner argues that the “only sensible result” would be for joinder
`
`to be granted and for this panel to move forward with a “single proceeding on one
`
`schedule with a single oral hearing.” The Board has already assigned all of the co-
`
`petitioners separate petitions to the same panel so that one determination for claim
`
`construction and substantive review of the ‘463 patent may be handled by the same
`
`reviewing body. At this stage, that is the extent of what can be done to merge
`
`these proceedings and all that is required for efficiency purposes. Nissan, as well
`
`as its co-petitioners, deserve to have its own day before the Board for a
`
`12
`
`

`

`determination on the merits of its arguments. For this Board to do otherwise would
`
`be contrary to the purpose of these proceedings and intent of this review process
`
`overall. The assigned panel is in the best position to streamline this process and to
`
`balance between the interests of the parties and the public, while fully vetting the
`
`patentability of the ‘463 patent. Even though the Patent Owner contends that
`
`discovery will be unduly costly for Patent Owner, this concern is premature at best.
`
`This panel is in the optimal position to provide the parties with a schedule,
`
`including discovery (expert and fact), once the decisions on instituting the inter
`
`partes review proceedings have been made.
`
`In a last ditch effort, Patent Owner argues that the petitions have inter-
`
`petition redundancy. This is clearly not the case. Again, as noted by the chart in
`
`Section III.B above, none of the petitions rely upon the same primary references
`
`and have very limited overlap between secondary references. Patent Owner also
`
`contends that Nissan did not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b). Nissan’s Petition
`
`included the real parties-in-interest, related matters, lead and back-up counsel, and
`
`service information as required by the statute. The petitions filed by Nissan and its
`
`co-petitioners were filed on the same day or the following business day and until
`
`these actions are instituted, it is not clear that these petitions relate to one another.
`
`Additionally, this argument is a moot point as all of the pending petitions have
`
`been assigned to the same panel so the Patent Owner’s concern about
`
`13
`
`

`

`inconsistencies has been resolved.
`
`F.
`
`Pre-Institution Joinder Is Not Permissible Under The Rules And
`Board Precedent.
`
`Regarding the timing of this filing, joinder may be granted “[i]f the Director
`
`institutes an inter partes review . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added). As
`
`such, it is clear from the statutory language that the decision to grant or deny
`
`joinder should occur after inter partes review has been instituted. Patent Owner
`
`also argues that pre-institution joinder should be granted here under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122. Sections 120-123 of the Trial Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board all concern situations that arise after inter partes review has been instituted.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §§ 120-23. Again, Patent Owner’s effort to cite statutory support for
`
`its motion is misplaced and misguided. As such, Patent Owner has failed to
`
`provide rules or precedent to support this panel’s consideration of joinder before
`
`inter partes review has been instituted.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has failed to meet its burden and
`
`the Board should deny Patent Owner’s motion for joinder.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: _______________________
`Vaibhav P. Kadaba
`Registration No. 45,865
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`14
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this Opposition to CCT’s
`
`Motion for Joinder was sent via has been served via electronic mail on May 8,
`
`John R. Kasha, Kasha Law LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`By:
`Registration No. 45,865
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`upon the following:
`
`
`
`Dated: May 8, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`