`
`PATENT: RE43,707
`
`INVENTOR: TOM KIMPE ET AL.
`
`FILED: DECEMBER 28, 2011
`
`ISSUED: OCTOBER 2, 2012
`
`TITLE: METHODS, APPARATUS, AND DEVICES FOR NOISE REDUCTION
`
`CASE NO.: IPR2014-00778
`___________________________________________________________
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW (37
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Eizo Corporation (“Eizo”) files this Motion for Joinder of inter
`
`partes review, Case No. IPR2014-00778 (“Second Petition”), with the inter partes
`
`review, Case No. IPR2014-00358 (“First Petition”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`No fee is required for consideration of this Motion. Petitioner Eizo has paid
`
`the fee for the First and Second Petitions for inter partes review. Should this be
`
`incorrect, the Patent Office is authorized to charge the necessary fee Quinn
`
`Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan deposit account no. 505708.
`
`I.
`
`APPLICABLE RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) states in pertinent part:
`
`Request for joinder. Joinder may be requested by a patent owner or petitioner.
`
`Any request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than
`
`one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which
`
`joinder is requested.
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`In this Motion, Petitioner Eizo requests that the Second Petition be joined
`
`with the First Petition.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner Barco N.V. (“Barco”) filed a patent infringement action
`
`against Eizo on September 2, 2011, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00778
`Motion for Joinder
`
`7,639,849 ("the ‘849 patent") in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
`
`Case No. 1:11-CV-2964 (“the Litigation”). Over three months later, Patent Owner
`
`surrendered its patent and filed a broadening reissue application of the ‘849 patent
`
`in the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") on December 28,
`
`2011. The broadening reissue application sought to add new claims 38-115 while
`
`leaving original claims 1-37 unchanged.
`
`2.
`
`In light of the reissue initiated by Barco, Eizo asked the Court to stay
`
`the proceedings of the Litigation. Eizo’s reasons for seeking the stay included: (1)
`
`with the patent under review by the USPTO, the scope of the patent and
`
`number/scope of final claims were unsettled; (2) until the scope of the patent is
`
`settled by the USPTO, litigation is premature, a waste of resources, and would
`
`force the parties to litigate a patent that could well be gone by the conclusion of the
`
`litigation; (3) courts routinely grant stays when no trial date has been set and the
`
`case is in the early stages of discovery; and (4) there is no prejudice to either party
`
`to litigate the case once the patent has been finalized. The Court agreed with Eizo
`
`and stayed the matter on April 20, 2012. The stay remains in place.
`
`3.
`
`Eizo prepared and filed a request for inter partes reexamination (the
`
`“IP Reexam”) on July 18, 2012, seeking reexamination of all 37 of the original
`
`claims of the '849 patent.
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00778
`Motion for Joinder
`
`4. While the decision on whether or not to grant the request for the IP
`
`Reexam remained pending, the USPTO issued a first action Notice of Allowance
`
`in the broadening reissue application on August 2, 2012, finding all 115 claims
`
`allowable without rejecting any of the claims over prior art. The broadening
`
`reissue application issued as U.S. Patent No. RE 43,707 (“the ‘707 patent”) on
`
`October 2, 2012, with the original claims 1-37 and newly added claims 38-115
`
`unchanged during prosecution.
`
`5.
`
`Since the '707 patent issued prior to the grant of the IP Reexam, the
`
`USPTO considered whether to grant the request for the IP Reexam based on the
`
`original claims 1-37 as well as claims 38-115 added in the reissue. The USPTO
`
`issued an Order on October 15, 2012 granting reexamination of original claims 1-
`
`35 and 37 as well as claims 38-45, 47-53, 55-63, 83, 84, 89, 90, 95-97, 105, 106
`
`and 108-115 added by reissue concurrently with an Office Action rejecting the
`
`claims. Barco filed a Response on December 17, 2012, adding new claims 116-
`
`120.
`
`6.
`
`At the time that the IP Reexam was granted on October 15, 2012,
`
`inter partes reexamination was no longer an available procedure at the USPTO. In
`
`addition, under the Rules at the time, an inter partes review of the ‘707 patent was
`
`unavailable until nine months after its issue date of October 2, 2012, which was
`
`July 2, 2013.
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00778
`Motion for Joinder
`
`7. With no option to file an inter partes procedure for any of the claims
`
`of the ‘707 patent until July 2, 2013, Eizo filed a request on December 28, 2012,
`
`for an ex parte reexamination (“Ex Parte Reexam”) of claims 36, 46, 54, 64-82,
`
`85-88, 91-94, 98-104, and 107 of the ‘707 patent (collectively, the “Ex Parte
`
`Reexam Claims”), which were the claims not included in the IP Reexam.
`
`8.
`
`On January 17, 2013, Barco amended its complaint in the Litigation,
`
`asserting infringement of the ‘707 patent for the first time.
`
`9.
`
`On March 19, 2013, the USPTO granted the request for Ex Parte
`
`Reexam on all grounds and issued a Non-Final Office Action rejecting all of the
`
`Ex Parte Reexam Claims.
`
`10. Barco filed a Response to the Non-Final Office Action in the Ex Parte
`
`Reexam on May 18, 2013 that amended claims 66, 67, 76, 80-82, 85, 91, 100 and
`
`101, canceled claim 92, and added new claims 121-135. Claims 121-135 were
`
`renumbered as claims 116-130, respectively.
`
`11. On September 20, 2013, the USPTO issued a Final Office Action in
`
`the Ex Parte Reexam in which claims 64, 65, 67-73, 77-79, 81, 82, 91, 98 and 99
`
`remained rejected, new claims 116-118 were rejected, claims 36, 46, 54, 66, 74-76,
`
`80, 85-88, 93, 94, 100-104 and 107 were confirmed, and new claims 119-130 were
`
`found patentable.
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00778
`Motion for Joinder
`
`12. Barco filed a Response to the Final Office Action in the Ex Parte
`
`Reexam on November 20, 2013, seeking to amend claims 68, 71, 74, 98, 117, and
`
`118 and to cancel claims 67, 81, 82, and 116, and then filed a corrected Response
`
`on November 22, 2013, to correct the formatting of the claim amendments.
`
`13. On December 23, 2013, the USPTO issued an Advisory Action in the
`
`Ex Parte Reexam withdrawing the rejections of claims 68-73, 98, 99, 117, and 118
`
`and maintaining the rejections of claims 64, 65, 77-79 and 91.
`
`14. Barco filed a Response to the Advisory Action in the Ex Parte
`
`Reexam on January 7, 2014, amending claims 64, 65, 77, 79, and 91.
`
`15. As of January 17, 2014, which was one year from the date that Barco
`
`had amended its complaint to assert infringement of the ‘707 patent for the first
`
`time, the USPTO had not issued a decision regarding the entry of the amendments
`
`to claims 64, 65, 77, 79, and 91. Without knowing whether the amendments would
`
`or would not be entered, Eizo filed the First Petition on January 17, 2014 seeking
`
`inter partes review of claims 36, 46, 54, 64, 65, 77-79, 93, 94, 101-104, and 107 of
`
`the ‘707 patent. As of January 17, 2014, claims 36, 46, 54, 64, 65, 77-79, 93, 94,
`
`102-104, and 107 had not been amended. Claim 101 had been amended to be in
`
`independent form, and thus had the same scope as original claim 101. The First
`
`Petition did not seek inter partes review of claims 66, 68-76, 80, 85-88, 91, 98-100
`
`and 116-129 because these claims had been amended or added during the Ex Parte
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00778
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Reexam and could not be subject to inter partes review until a Reexamination
`
`Certificate was issued.
`
`16. Before the USPTO issued a decision on whether to enter the
`
`amendments in Barco’s Response of January 7, 2014, Barco filed another
`
`Response in the Ex Parte Reexam on January 28, 2014, seeking to cancel claims
`
`77-79, 93 and 94.
`
`17. On February 26, 2014, the USPTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate. The Notice identified the status of the claims
`
`as follows: claims 36, 46, 54 and 107 were confirmed; claims 64-66, 68-76, 80,
`
`85-88, 91, and 98-104 were amended; claims 67, 77-79, 81, 82, and 92-94 were
`
`canceled; new claims 117-130 were found patentable; and new claim 116 was
`
`canceled.
`
`18. The Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued on March 31, 2014.
`
`Because new claim 116 had been canceled, claims 117-130 were renumbered as
`
`claims 116-129, respectively, in the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate.
`
`19. On April 4, 2014, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution
`
`(“ACP”) in the IP Reexam in which all pending claims remained rejected except
`
`for claims 20 and 21. Barco subsequently Filed Comments after ACP on May 5,
`
`2014, seeking to cancel claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17-19, 22-24, 27-30, 33,
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00778
`Motion for Joinder
`
`34, 37-45, 47-49, 53, 55-63, 83, 84, 89, 90, 95-97, 105, 106, and 116-120 and
`
`amend claims 6, 12, 13, 31, 32, 35, 50, 108, and 114.
`
`20. Eizo filed the Second Petition on May 20, 2014 seeking the inter
`
`partes review of claims 64-66, 68-76, 80, 85-88, 91, 98-100 and 116-129. Each of
`
`these claims had been amended or added by Barco during the Ex Parte Reexam
`
`and could not have been the subject of the First Petition.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The Board has authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a properly-filed
`
`second inter partes review petition to a related inter partes review proceeding. This
`
`request for joinder is timely and the time periods set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b)
`
`do not apply to the Second Petition because of this request for joinder. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b).
`
`
`
`This request for joinder should be granted because it will be more efficient
`
`to conduct the inter partes review as part of a single proceeding, there is no
`
`discernible prejudice to either party, and Petitioner has been diligent and timely in
`
`filing the motion and Second Petition.
`
`A. GRANTING THE MOTION WOULD MAKE CONDUCTING
`THE REVIEWS MORE EFFICIENT
`
`
`
`Granting this joinder of the First and Second Petitions will make conducting
`
`the inter partes review more efficient for the Board and for the parties. Both
`
`Petitions involve the same patent, the ‘707 patent. Both Petitions also involve the
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00778
`Motion for Joinder
`
`same parties, Eizo and Barco. Moreover, not only do the claims in the two
`
`Petitions share claim limitations in common, but there is a substantial overlap of
`
`the prior art cited in the two Petitions.1 Given the two Petitions involve the same
`
`patent, the same parties, common claim limitations and common prior art, it would
`
`be a waste of resources to have separate proceedings handled by different panels to
`
`conduct the review of the two Petitions.
`
`B. NO PREJUDICE
`
`
`
`Granting the joinder of the First and Second Petitions would not prejudice
`
`the parties or the proceedings of the two Petitions. In particular, the grounds for
`
`invalidating the claims of the two Petitions rely on many of the same references,
`
`thus minimizing the burden of the parties in analyzing the prior art. Similarly,
`
`since the claims of the two Petitions share multiple common limitations, the
`
`number of issues raised by the joinder of the Petitions will not be substantially
`
`increased.
`
`The joinder of the Petitions would also not prejudice the conduct of the
`
`reviews or the Litigation. The Petitions were filed within four months of each
`
`other, so there would not be much if any delay from granting the joinder. In
`
`
`1 For example, claim 101 in the Second Petition depends from claim 100 in the
`
`First Petition, and thus includes all of the limitations of claim 100. In addition,
`
`both petitions rely on the Kamada, Nakai, Mizukoshi, and Greene references.
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00778
`Motion for Joinder
`
`addition, the Litigation has remained stayed because of the ongoing USPTO
`
`proceedings involving the ‘707 patent, which includes the still pending IP Reexam.
`
`Given the accelerated process of inter partes review as compared to inter partes
`
`reexamination and the still pending IP Reexam of the ‘707 patent, any delay from
`
`granting the joinder will have little if any impact on the timing for a potential
`
`lifting of the stay and thus not prejudice either party.
`
`C.
`
`PETITIONER EIZO HAS BEEN DILIGENT AND TIMELY IN
`FILING THE SECOND PETITION AND THIS MOTION
`
`Eizo has been diligent in filing the Second Petition and timely in filing this
`
`motion to join the First and Second Petitions. As explained above, the claims in
`
`the Second Petition for which Eizo is seeking review only became subject to a
`
`potential inter partes review when they issued in the Reexamination Certificate on
`
`March 31, 2014. Eizo prepared and filed the Second Petition less than two months
`
`after the issue date of the Reexamination Certificate and within four months of the
`
`filing date of the First Petition. Accordingly, Eizo has in no way unduly delayed
`
`seeking inter partes review of the claims in the Second Petition.
`
`In addition, Eizo has filed this motion within the time required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b).
`
`
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00778
`Motion for Joinder
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Eizo asks that the motion for joinder of the Second
`
`Petition with the First Petition be granted.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Eizo Corporation,
`Petitioner
`
`By: /Marc K. Weinstein/
`Marc K. Weinstein
`Registration No. 43,250
`QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Tel: +813-5510-1711
`Fax: +813-5510-1712
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent RE43,707
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that, on July 21, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing Motion for Joinder to Related Inter Partes Review (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b)) to be served via FedEx Priority Overnight on the
`
`following:
`
`Kerry T. Hartman
`Hartman Patents PLLC
`3399 Flint Hill Pl.
`Woodbridge, VA 22192
`
`
`By: /Marc K. Weinstein/
`Marc K. Weinstein
`Registration No. 43,250
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`03220.23279/6112949.2
`
`
`
`
`