`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MATCH.COM LLC and PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`IPR Case No.: To be Assigned
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C §§ 315(c),
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Match.com LLC and People Media, Inc. (“Petitioners”) submit concurrently
`
`herewith a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 (“the
`
`’314 Patent”) (“Petition”) based on identical grounds that form the basis for
`
`pending IPR proceeding, Case No. IPR2014-00038 (“the Google IPR”).
`
`Pursuant to 35 US.C. § 315(c), Petitioners respectfully move that this
`
`Petition be instituted and joined with the Google IPR. Petitioners merely request
`
`an opportunity to join with the Google IPR as an “understudy” to Google, only
`
`assuming an active role in the event Google settles with B.E. Technology. Thus,
`
`Petitioners do not seek to alter the grounds upon which the Board has already
`
`instituted the IPR, and joinder will have no impact on the existing schedule in the
`
`IPR. Under rule 42.122, this Motion is timely as it was filed within one month of
`
`the granting of IPR2014-00038.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`B.E Technology (“B.E. Tech”) is the owner of the ’314 Patent. In 2012,
`
`B.E. Tech sued ten different companies for alleged infringement of the ‘314 Patent
`
`“Underlying Litigation”). In October of 2013, three of the defendants, Facebook,
`
`Microsoft, and Google, filed petitions for inter partes review of the ’314 Patent.
`
`Facebook filed two separate petitions as well as a request to consolidate both of its
`
`petitions which the Board said it would discuss at the initial conference call. All
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`four petitions were granted on April 9, 2014. See Facebook v. B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C. (Case No. IPR2014-00053); Microsoft Corporation v. B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C. (Case No. IPR2014-00039); Facebook v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (Case No.
`
`IPR2014-00052); and Google Inc. v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (Case No. IPR2014-
`
`00038).
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTION FOR JOINDER ARE MET
`Petitioners respectfully submit that joinder is appropriate because: (1) it will
`
`promote efficient determination of the validity of the ’314 Patent without prejudice
`
`to Google or B.E. Tech; (2) this petition raises only the same grounds of
`
`unpatentability as Google and for which the Board instituted review; (3) it would
`
`not affect the pending schedule in the Google IPR in any way nor increase the
`
`complexity of that proceeding in any way; and (4) Petitioners are willing to accept
`
`an understudy role to minimize burden and schedule impact. Absent joinder,
`
`Petitioners could be prejudiced if the Google IPR is terminated before a final
`
`written decision is issued as they would have to litigate the same positions at the
`
`District Court under a higher burden of proof. Accordingly, joinder should be
`
`granted.
`
`a.
`
`Joinder Will Promote the Efficient Determination of Validity
`Without Prejudice to Google or B.E. Tech.
`
`Granting joinder and permitting Petitioners to assume the understudy role
`
`will not prejudice Google or B.E. Tech. Petitioners raise no issues that are not
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`already before the Board, such that joinder would not affect the timing of the IPR
`
`or the content of B.E. Tech’s responses. Petitioners’ limited role ensures that
`
`Google and B.E. Tech will not suffer any additional costs. Google will not be
`
`obligated to cooperate with Petitioners. Likewise, B.E. Tech will not have to
`
`coordinate with or respond to arguments by more parties than they already do.
`
`Moreover, a final written decision on the validity of the ’314 patent will
`
`minimize issues in the Underlying Litigation and potentially resolve the Litigation
`
`altogether thereby promoting the efficient determination of validity. If the Board
`
`permits Petitioners to join the Google IPR, and the ’314 patent is upheld in a final
`
`decision, Petitioners will be estopped from further challenging the validity of the
`
`patent on these grounds, avoiding duplication of B.E. Tech’s efforts at least as to
`
`Petitioners. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). Accordingly, to avoid duplicate efforts and
`
`promote efficiency, joinder is appropriate.
`
`No New Arguments Are Presented.
`
`b.
`The petition asserts, verbatim, only the arguments that the Board has already
`
`instituted in the Google IPR. Thus, there are no new arguments to consider.
`
`Further, the Petition relies on the expert witness, Stephen Gray, who is already
`
`involved in Google’s IPR. Thus, no new expert depositions are required.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`No Schedule Adjustments Are Necessary.
`
`c.
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. Section 316(a)(11) provides that IPR proceedings should be
`
`completed and the Board’s final decision issued within one year of institution of
`
`the review. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Here, joinder will not affect the
`
`Board’s ability to issue its final determination within one year because Petitioners
`
`agree to an understudy role and do not raise any issues that are not already before
`
`the Board. Indeed, the Petition includes only those grounds on which the IPR was
`
`instituted, and the invalidity grounds were copied verbatim from Google’s petition.
`
`Given that Petitioners will assume an understudy role, their presence will not
`
`introduce any additional arguments, briefing, or need for discovery.
`
`Petitioners submit that B.E. Tech does not need to file a Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, and request that the Board proceed without it. This is
`
`consistent with the Board’s Order IPR2013-00256 (Paper No. 8), which allowed
`
`the Patent Owner to file a preliminary response addressing only those points raised
`
`in the new petition that were different from those in the granted petition. Here,
`
`because the invalidity grounds are word-for-word identical to those allowed
`
`grounds in Google’s Petition, there is nothing new for B.E. Tech to address.
`
`Moreover, B.E. Tech did not file a Preliminary Response to Google’s petition or
`
`any of the other four petitions filed against the ’314 Patent. Alternatively, the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Board can add an additional deadline for B.E. Tech to respond to this Petition, but
`
`this deadline will not impact other deadlines in the schedule.
`
`In view of the above, Petitioners submit that the current schedule in the
`
`Google IPR can stay unchanged.
`
`Petitioners Agree To Assume A Limited Role
`
`d.
`As long as Google remains in the joined IPR, Petitioners agree to assume a
`
`limited “understudy” role. As discussed above, Petitioners offer no new grounds
`
`for invalidity and their presence will not introduce any additional arguments,
`
`briefing or need for discovery.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that their Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of the ’314 Patent be granted and that the proceedings be
`
`joined with IPR2014-00038.
`
`Although Petitioners believe no fee is required for this Motion, the
`
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees which may be
`
`required for this Motion to Deposit Account No. 02-1818.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 25, 2014
`
`
`
`5
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Sanjay Murthy /
`Sanjay Murthy
`Reg. No. 45,976
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this day, April 25, 2014, a copy of the foregoing
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C §§ 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22
`
`AND 42.122(b) were served upon Patent Owner, by placing into Express Mail
`
`directed to the attorney of record for the patent at the following address:
`
`Dated: April 25, 2014
`
`James D. Stevens
`Reising Ethington P.C.
`P.O. Box 4390
`Troy MI 48099
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Sanjay Murthy /
`Sanjay Murthy
`Reg. No. 45,976
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`