`Date: July 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00746
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to authorization from the panel, Patent Owner filed a Motion for
`
`Discovery from Petitioner. Paper 10 (“Motion”). In its Motion, Patent Owner
`
`seeks production of the indemnification agreement between Petitioner and
`
`Comcast. Id. at 4. Petitioner opposes the Motion arguing that the agreement will
`
`not uncover something useful because Patent Owner failed to explain how the
`
`agreement can establish that Petitioner was in privity with Comcast. Paper 11
`
`(“Opp.”) at 1-2. Patent Owner seeks to prove that the petition is time-barred under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) by showing privity between Petitioner and Comcast during the
`
`relevant time period. See Paper 14 at 3 (“Reply”). Because Patent Owner has
`
`shown factual support for its very limited discovery request, we hereby grant the
`
`Motion.
`
`WHETHER SOMETHING USEFUL WILL BE FOUND
`
`
`
`The first and oft-disputed factor in determining whether additional discovery
`
`is necessary in the interests of justice is whether there exists more than a “mere
`
`possibility” or “mere allegation that something useful [to the proceeding] will be
`
`found.” Garmin Int’l, Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs LLC, Case IPR2012-
`
`00001, Paper 20, slip op. at 2-3 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2014), “Order—Authorizing
`
`Motion for Additional Discovery” (listing factors to determine whether a discovery
`
`request is necessary in the interests of justice) (“the Garmin factors”). Under this
`
`first factor, a party should already be in possession of evidence tending to show
`
`beyond speculation that in fact something useful will be uncovered. Id. The
`
`discovery-seeking party only needs to set forth a threshold amount of evidence
`
`tending to show that the discovery it seeks factually supports its contention. See
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00746
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Garmin, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26, slip op. at 8-9, “Decision—On Motion for
`
`Additional Discovery” (finding that, with respect to Cuozzo’s contention of
`
`commercial success, Cuozzo failed to present a threshold amount of evidence
`
`tending to show that the requested discovery of sales and pricing information
`
`involved units with a nexus to the claimed features). Something “useful” is
`
`something favorable in substantive value to a contention of the party moving for
`
`discovery. Id. at 7-8. We have not required that a party seeking additional
`
`discovery prove its contention as a prerequisite for obtaining the additional
`
`discovery. Furthermore, we weigh other considerations in addition to the Garmin
`
`factors, such as whether the requested additional discovery is very limited and
`
`sought early in the proceeding.
`
`
`
`At issue is the dispute regarding whether production of an indemnification
`
`agreement in this proceeding is in the interests of justice. Patent Owner has made
`
`a very limited request concerning the agreement between Petitioner and Comcast, a
`
`non-party to this proceeding. The existence of this agreement is not disputed.
`
`Opp. n.1. The question for us to answer is whether Patent Owner has brought forth
`
`a threshold amount of evidence tending to show that the indemnification agreement
`
`supports the contention that Petitioner controlled or could have exercised control in
`
`the prior litigation where Comcast was a defendant.1 Although Petitioner does not
`
`dispute that the agreement exists or that indemnification was requested, Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner addressed all the remaining Garmin factors in its Motion. Motion
`6-8. We do not address those factors in this decision as Patent Owner has made a
`sufficient showing and Petitioner has not contested them.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00746
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`urges that we answer the question in the negative because the agreement alone
`
`cannot give rise to privity. Motion 2-7.
`
`We are not persuaded that in order for Patent Owner to show it is entitled to
`
`the indemnification agreement, it must first prove, at this time, that Petitioner
`
`exercised control over Comcast sufficient for it to be deemed in privity with
`
`Comcast. Patent Owner has provided evidence showing: (1) the agreement
`
`exists;2 (2) Comcast made indemnification claims against Petitioner;3 (3) Petitioner
`
`had contractual rights with Comcast regarding exercising “sole control” of the
`
`litigation;4 and (4) Petitioner resolved the indemnification claims with Comcast.5
`
`This evidence constitutes threshold evidence sufficient to deem the very limited
`
`request of the indemnification agreement to be necessary in the interests of justice.
`
`Also of importance is the consideration that the request was made a mere one
`
`month after the Petition received a notice of filing accorded. Based on the
`
`foregoing, we determine that, based on the specific facts presented in this case,
`
`Patent Owner’s request for the indemnification agreement is in the interests of
`
`justice.
`
`This decision does not address the ultimate issue of whether Petitioner and
`
`Comcast were privies or that the evidence sought by Patent Owner will eventually
`
`show privity. We have considered Petitioner’s argument that it is improper to infer
`
`privity in a situation where Petitioner settled a contractual dispute with Comcast.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`2 Ex. 2011 at p. 15 l. 14 - 16, l. 3.
`3 Ex. 2006 at 125.
`4 Ex. 2010 at 6.
`5 Supra n.3.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00746
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opp. 7-8. The parties are free to argue the various inferences from the facts
`
`presented in the light most favorable to their position. At this juncture, we do not
`
`weigh the facts to determine the likelihood that Petitioner and Comcast were
`
`privies in the relevant time period. Doing otherwise puts Patent Owner in a
`
`precarious situation of having the burden to prove its contention in order to seek
`
`the evidence that supports that contention.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner shall produce:
`
`Agreement(s) between Arris and Comcast under which
`Comcast requested indemnification for the claims brought
`against Comcast in the Texas Litigation that reference (or are
`contingent on) Arris’s ability to control the litigation
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner is authorized to file a motion for
`
`protective order pursuant to the guidance provided in our Order dated July 2, 2014,
`
`Paper 9, in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00746
`Patent 5,563,883
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Jonathan E. Retsky
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`asommer@winston.com
`jretsky@winston.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Lewis Popovski
`Jeffrey Gingsberg
`David Kaplan
`David Cooperberg
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`jginsberg@kenyon.com
`lpopovski@kenyon.com
`djkaplan@kenyon.com
`dcooperberg@kenyon.com