`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 14
` Filed: July 16, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR2014-00746
`Patent 5,563,883
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
`
`DISCOVERY FROM PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00746
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 14
` Filed: July 16, 2014
`
`
`
`Petitioner does not contest that four of the five factors outlined in Garmin Int’l,
`
`Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, 2012-00001, Paper 26 (PTAB Mar. 5,
`
`2013) for determining whether additional discovery is “necessary in the interest of
`
`justice” weigh in favor of granting Patent Owner’s motion for targeted discovery. (See
`
`Paper No. 11 (“Opposition”)). As to the remaining factor (more than a possibility and
`
`mere allegation), Petitioner admits that the documents that Patent Owner seeks exist.
`
`Petitioner nevertheless asserts that the discovery sought will not be “useful” because it
`
`will not be determinative of the issue in question—whether the petition is time-barred
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). In doing so, Petitioner misapplies the standards for
`
`obtaining additional discovery and for evaluating privity.
`
`II. The Agreements that Patent Owner Seeks Are “Useful” Under the
`Guidelines Set Forth in the Trial Practice Guide
`In Garmin Int’l, 2012-00001, Paper 26, the Board described the first factor in
`
`determining whether discovery is “necessary in the interest of justice” as follows:
`
`More Than A Possibility And Mere Allegation – The mere possibility of
`
`finding something useful, and mere allegation that something useful will
`
`be found, are insufficient to demonstrate that the requested discovery is
`
`necessary in the interest of justice. The party requesting discovery
`
`should already be in possession of evidence tending to show beyond
`
`speculation that in fact something useful will be uncovered.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00746
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`Id. at 6. The “essence” of this factor is “a threshold amount of evidence or reasoning”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 14
` Filed: July 16, 2014
`
`
`
`tending to show that something “useful” will be uncovered. Id. at 7. “In the context
`
`of Factor (1), ‘useful’ means favorable in substantive value to a contention of the party
`
`moving for discovery.” Id. Nothing in Garmin requires that the discovery “prove” an
`
`issue to be deemed “useful,” and Petitioner provides no legal support for reading such
`
`a requirement into the first Garmin factor. (See Opposition at 1-2.)
`
`
`
`The PTO’s Trial Practice Guide identifies a number of considerations for
`
`determining whether a non-party in a prior litigation can be deemed a “privy.” See 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial Practice Guide”). A “common
`
`consideration is whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over
`
`a party’s participation in a proceeding.”1 Id. As set forth in Patent Owner’s motion
`
`for discovery, the publicly available Corporate Terms and Conditions of Sale from
`
`Petitioner’s website require that Petitioner have “sole control of the defense and all
`
`negotiations for its settlement or compromise” as a condition for indemnification. See
`
`Paper No. 10 (“Motion”) at 5-6. If Petitioner’s agreements with Comcast contain this
`
`
`1
`Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion (see Opposition, n. 4), nothing in the Trial
`
`Practice Guide requires a party to have control over an entire litigation. That other
`
`products were accused in the prior litigation does not negate the fact that Petitioner
`
`had the contractual right, and at the very least the opportunity, to control Comcast’s
`
`participation in the litigation as it related to Petitioner’s products.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00746
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`provision,2 they fall squarely within the “common consideration” of whether
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 14
` Filed: July 16, 2014
`
`
`
`Petitioner “could have exercised control” over Comcast’s participation in the earlier
`
`litigation, and would be favorable in substantive value to Patent Owner’s contention
`
`regarding the Petition being time-barred under 35 U.S.C. §135(b).3
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s argument that the discovery sought must “prove” an issue to be
`
`considered “useful” has already been rejected by the Board. See Atlanta Gas Light
`
`
`2
`Petitioner concedes that indemnification agreements with Comcast exist and
`
`does not dispute that such agreements include the provision regarding “sole control”
`
`in the publicly available agreement from Petitioners website. See Opposition, n. 1.
`
`3
`
`Petitioner attempts to equate the issue of privity with claim preclusion when it
`
`argues that the Second Texas Action could not have been brought if Petitioner were a
`
`privy to a party in the first litigation. See Opposition, n. 2. However, this assertion
`
`assumes that the tests for privity and claim preclusion are one and the same, which, in
`
`addition to being legally incorrect, is directed to the wrong forum. While the Board
`
`need not address that issue in deciding this motion, Patent Owner notes that the
`
`discrete issue of privity is part of only one element (whether the later action involves
`
`the same parties) of the test for determining whether the factors for claim preclusion
`
`(and any of its applicable exceptions) are satisfied. Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, 701
`
`F.2d 556, 559 (5th Cir. 1983) (en banc) (listing the four factors of a claim preclusion
`
`analysis).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00746
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., Case IPR2013-00453, Paper 40 (PTAB Apr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 14
` Filed: July 16, 2014
`
`
`
`23, 2014). In Atlanta Gas Light, the patent owner sought discovery from petitioner
`
`relating to an indemnification dispute between the petitioner and a third party. In
`
`granting the requested discovery, the Board rejected petitioner’s argument that the
`
`discovery would not “show that one party in fact controlled the other’s role in the
`
`Lawsuit” and found that the requested discovery would provide information relevant
`
`to the “highly fact-dependent question” of evaluating whether a party is a real party-
`
`in-interest. See id. at 7. As in Atlanta Gas Light, the Board here should reject
`
`Petitioner’s unduly narrow view on what constitutes “useful” discovery.
`
`III. Petitioner’s Reliance on Broadcom Is Misplaced
`
`Petitioner cites the Board’s decision in Broadcom Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget
`
`LM Ericsson (PUBL), IPR2013-00601, Paper 23 (Jan. 24, 2014) as a reason to deny
`
`the request for additional discovery, but fails to recognize the key factual distinctions
`
`between Broadcom and the targeted discovery sought by Patent Owner in this
`
`proceeding. In Broadcom, the patent owner (Ericsson) sought extensive discovery
`
`including seven requests for production broadly written4 to encompass agreements,
`
`invoices, payments, and communications between Broadcom and other litigation
`
`
`4
`For example, Ericsson’s requests sought a large volume of discovery including
`
`“all agreements,” “all invoices,” “records of any payments made by Broadcom,” and
`
`“all emails and written correspondence.” See id. at 3-4.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00746
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`defendants or their counsel. See id. at 3-4. In declining to grant Ericsson the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 14
` Filed: July 16, 2014
`
`
`
`discovery it sought, the Board noted that Ericsson had “not provided evidence to show
`
`that there is more than a mere possibility that the sought-after discovery even exists”
`
`and specifically, that Ericsson did not show “that communication about any defense
`
`agreements, duty to defend agreements, agreements to intervene, invalidity positions,
`
`and claim interpretation, exist.” Id. at 16.
`
`This is not the case here, as Patent Owner seeks to obtain discovery responsive
`
`to only a single narrow request, and Petitioner concedes that agreements between
`
`Petitioner and Comcast that include indemnification provisions exist. Moreover,
`
`unlike the Patent Owner in this proceeding, Ericsson had sought to establish privity
`
`based on the mere existence of indemnification obligations and payments but had not
`
`made any threshold showing regarding the issue of “control” as it related to such
`
`obligations. Id. at 7 (“To be bound, in normal situations, Broadcom must have had
`
`control over the Texas Litigation.”). Here, the Patent Owner has provided the
`
`necessary threshold evidence of control in the form of Arris’s own Corporate Terms
`
`and Conditions of Sale, which specifically require such “control.” See Motion at 3-4.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the above reasons, and those given in the Motion, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests that the Board allow the discovery proposed in Exhibit 2001.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00746
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 14
` Filed: July 16, 2014
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`__/Lewis V. Popovski/__________
`Lewis V. Popovski
`Registration No. 37,423
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`Date: July 16, 2014
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00746
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Paper No. 14
` Filed: July 16, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FROM PETITIONER was served via e-mail on
`
`July 16, 2014, in its entirety on the following:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`asommer@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-3817
`T: (202) 282-5000; F: (202) 282-5100
`
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`
`Jonathan E. Retsky
`jretsky@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: (312) 558-3791; F: (312) 558-5700
`
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`__/David J. Kaplan/__________
`David J. Kaplan
`Registration No. 57,117
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`Date: July 16, 2014
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`
`
`7
`
`