`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00558
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0004IP1
`Case IPR2014-00558
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. VirnetX’s Interpretations of 35 U.S.C. § 315 is Incorrect .................................. 1
`
`Joinder of this Proceeding with IPR2014-00171 Will Not Substantially
`III.
`Increase the Complexity or Duration of the Proceedings or Prejudice VirnetX ....... 3
`
`IV. Microsoft’s Opportunities in Prior Proceedings ............................................... 4
`
`V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0004IP1
`Case IPR2014-00558
`
`Microsoft’s motion for joinder satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20-22, 42.24, and 42.122(b), as well as prior Board
`
`precedent. See e.g., Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper No. 15
`
`at 4 (PTAB, Apr. 24, 2013). VirnetX’s arguments to the contrary revolve around
`
`incorrect interpretations of 35 U.S.C. § 315, an unfounded view that joinder would
`
`adversely impact the trial schedule of IPR2014-00171, and an incomplete portrayal
`
`of Microsoft’s opportunities in previous proceedings.
`
`II. VirnetX’s Interpretations of 35 U.S.C. § 315 is Incorrect
`First, VirnetX asserts that a petition subject to the time limit of § 315(b) does
`
`not “warrant[] the institution of an inter partes review” and, as a result, joinder
`
`under § 315(c) is not available. Paper No. 6 at 4. VirnetX’s argument ignores
`
`qualifying language that appears in § 315(c): “warrants the institution of an inter
`
`partes review under section 314.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, only the section 314 thresholds need to be considered when
`
`evaluating joinder.
`
`Second, VirnetX asserts that the one-year time bar applies even when
`
`joinder is requested, despite § 315(b)’s provision that the time limitation does not
`
`apply. Paper No. 6 at 6-7. The Board has consistently and correctly interpreted
`
`the last sentence of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to mean that a request for joinder will
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0004IP1
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00558
`
`
`“obviate the time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (b)” when including a motion for
`
`joinder and a corresponding petition for inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`315(c). See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2013-00349, Paper 14 at 4 (PTAB,
`
`Dec. 13, 2013); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109,
`
`Paper 15 at 3-4 (PTAB, Feb. 25, 2013). This interpretation is consistent with §
`
`315(b), § 315(c), and legislative history.
`
`With respect to § 315(b), the first sentence establishes a time constraint for
`
`filing a petition. By expressly referring back to the time constraint of the first
`
`sentence (“set forth in the preceding sentence”), the second sentence provides an
`
`exception to the first sentence’s time constraint for filing a petition. Thus, the
`
`second sentence cannot be read separately from the first sentence as VirnetX
`
`proposes. Moreover, the second sentence specifies the exception applies to
`
`requests for joinder under § 315(c). Because subsection (c) establishes that joinder
`
`is contingent on the filing of a petition for inter partes review by the party seeking
`
`joinder, Microsoft’s request for joinder (i.e., the required combination of its
`
`petition and motion for joinder) satisfies the exception of § 315(b).
`
`With respect to § 315(c), VirnetX relies heavily on an incorrect
`
`interpretation of “properly file[d].” VirnetX cites to portions of Senator Kyl’s
`
`comments regarding the term “properly filed” as used in § 315(c), but fails to cite
`
`the section of Senator Kyl’s comments that supports the Board’s previous
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0004IP1
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00558
`
`
`interpretation. See Paper No. 6 at 8. Relevant portions of Senator Kyl’s statement
`
`that were omitted by VirnetX appear in the following excerpt: “a petition is
`
`properly filed when it is delivered and accepted in compliance with applicable
`
`rules governing filings, though particular claims within filings be barred on other
`
`procedural grounds, and that time deadlines for filing petitions must be complied
`
`with in all cases.” Ex. 2009 at 7 (emphasis added). In full, his comments support
`
`making a determination of whether a petition has been “properly filed”
`
`independent of whether the petition is barred on other procedural grounds (e.g., the
`
`timing requirements of § 315(b)).
`
`III. Joinder of this Proceeding with IPR2014-00171 Will Not
`Substantially Increase the Complexity or Duration of the
`Proceedings or Prejudice VirnetX
`
`Though VirnetX broadly asserts that there are “significant differences
`
`between the petitions,” the only difference VirnetX is able to expressly identify is
`
`that Microsoft relies upon its own expert declaration. VirnetX contends that this
`
`single difference will overly complicate the proceedings. But, as Microsoft’s
`
`motion for joinder made clear, the Guerin Declaration relates to grounds already
`
`raised by the RPX IPR and it supports conclusions already set forth in that IPR.
`
`Paper No. 3 at 8. Simply employing a different expert, particularly when
`
`addressing grounds in a prior petition, does not overly complicate that proceeding.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0004IP1
`
`Case IPR2014-00558
`
`In fact, it should not be unexpected for a party to employ its own expert even
`
`when seeking joinder. Microsoft did not retain the primary declarant in the RPX
`
`IPR and therefore relies on its own expert to preserve its ability to present expert
`
`evidence throughout the proceeding, as appropriate, even if RPX discontinues its
`
`participation. Indeed, given the possibility that RPX may discontinue its
`
`participation in the IPR, Microsoft’s interests may be left without full and fair
`
`representation, absent inclusion of its expert testimony.
`
`Microsoft clarified its willingness “to accept reasonable reductions in the
`
`time periods applicable to its filings” or consolidate filings, if helpful. See Paper
`
`No. 3 at 9-10. Thus, any burden created by the need for “coordination between
`
`Microsoft and RPX” would not be borne by VirnetX, as it appears to suggest.
`
`Indeed, Microsoft is willing to coordinate deposition schedules with VirnetX and
`
`RPX to further relieve VirnetX of any prospective burden flowing from joinder.
`
`Finally, if needed or desired, the Board has the power, under 35 U.S.C.
`
`316(a)(11) to adjust the one-year deadline in the case of joinder. Such adjustments
`
`are simplified in the joinder of these proceedings as neither has yet to be instituted
`
`and scheduling orders have not been issued. Thus, the timeline of a joined trial can
`
`be set to accommodate all three parties without undue prejudice to any one.
`
`IV. Microsoft’s Opportunities in Prior Proceedings
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0004IP1
`
`Case IPR2014-00558
`
`Though VirnetX dramatizes the number of previous proceedings involving
`
`the ‘135 patent, Microsoft’s Petition makes clear (and VirnetX fails to mention)
`
`that Microsoft’s involvement in each ended prematurely through settlement by
`
`which Microsoft agreed to discontinue its attempts to invalidate the ‘135 patent at
`
`that time while expressly reserving Microsoft’s rights to do so again in the future.
`
`See Paper No. 1 at 3-13. These previous proceedings do not represent
`
`opportunities to fully litigate the patentability of the ‘135 patent claims either at the
`
`PTO or in civil litigation, as VirnetX suggests, because Microsoft discontinued
`
`participation due to the settlement. Accordingly, Microsoft would be materially
`
`prejudiced if prevented from participating in its own IPR or joining RPX’s, despite
`
`suggestions to the contrary.
`
`V. Conclusion
`Beyond satisfying the procedural requirements of a motion for joinder,
`
`Microsoft limited its grounds to a subset of those raised in IPR2014-00171 and to
`
`accept adjustments and restrictions that would reduce its impact on a joined
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, Microsoft’s motion for joinder should be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: 5/30/14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Kevin E. Greene/
`Kevin E. Greene
`Reg. No. 46,031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0004IP1
`Case IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on May 30, 2014, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder was
`
`provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the email correspondence
`
`addresses of record as follows:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farrabow,
`Garret & Dunner, L.L.P.
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`
`Naveen Modi
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farrabow,
`Garret & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
`Email: joseph.palys@finnegan.com
`Email: naveen.modi@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`