throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`
`RELOADED GAMES, INC.
`(Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC
`(Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00950
`
`Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`Inventors:
`Keith A. Lowery
`Bryan S. Chin
`David A. Consolver
`Gregg A. DeMasters
`
`Filed January 12, 2001
`
`For: Method and System for
`Dynamic Distributed Data Caching
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`CASE No: IPR2014-00950
`
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner’s motion should be denied because the petition at issue is not
`
`proper and because joinder is not supported by the factors that the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (the “Board”) should consider in determining whether to allow
`
`joinder. The petition filed in IPR2014-00950 (the petition and proceeding being
`
`referred to herein as “the ‘950 Petition” and “the ’950 IPR”, respectively) sets forth
`
`arguments that are made out of turn and in violation of rules and regulations that
`
`govern inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Moreover, there is no reason that
`
`the contentions of the ‘950 Petition could not have been included in the original
`
`petition submitted in IPR2014-00136 (such petition and proceeding being referred
`
`to herein as “the ‘950 Petition” and “the ’950 IPR”, respectively), which addresses
`
`the same parties, the same patent, the same prior art, and the same claims.
`
`In the ‘950 Petition, Petitioner requests the institution of a new IPR based on
`
`its petition filed more than a year after the institution of the related district court
`
`case and more than eight months after requesting inter partes review of the ‘145
`
`Patent in the ‘136 Petition. See IPR2014-00950, Paper No. 3. Concurrently,
`
`Petitioner moves to join the ‘950 IPR with the already-instituted ‘136 IPR. The
`
`‘950 Petition challenges only claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145 (the ‘145 Patent)
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`that were challenged in the ‘136 Petition and relies on art that is also cited in the
`
`‘136 Petition.
`
`35 U.S.C. Section 315(c) controls such motions, and provides that: “If the
`
`Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may
`
`join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition
`
`under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines
`
`warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.” In the instant
`
`case, the Patent Owner submits that the ‘950 Petition is not permitted under the
`
`rules, and that Petitioner’s motion for joinder must therefore be denied.
`
`
`II.
`
`Facts
`
` On May 9, 2013, the Patent Owner asserted the ‘145 Patent against
`
`Petitioner. See Complaint, Case No. 1:13-cv-00827-RGA, ECF No. 1
`
`(Ex. 1009).
`
` Petitioner was served on May 15, 2013. See Declaration of Mailing as to
`
`Service, Case No. 1:13-cv-00827-RGA, ECF No. 5 (Ex. 2002).
`
` On November 11, 2013, Petitioner filed a sixty page Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ‘145 Patent in IPR2014-00136. IPR2014-00136,
`
`Paper No. 4.
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
` The ‘136 Petition alleged that all of the claims of the ‘145 Patent were
`
`either anticipated or obvious and specifically, that claims 2-4, 6-7, 10,
`
`16-18, 20-21, 24, and 29-36 were obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,341,311 (“Smith”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,256,747 (“Inohara”).
`
`See IPR2014-00136, Paper No. 4 at 34-50.
`
` Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response on February 19, 2014.
`
`IPR2014-00136, Paper No. 9.
`
` On May 16, 2014, the Board instituted Inter Partes Review of claims 2-4,
`
`6, 7, 10, 16-18, 20, 21, 24, and 29-36 of U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145 and
`
`entered its initial scheduling order. IPR2014-00136, Paper Nos. 15 and
`
`16.
`
` The initial scheduling order gave the Patent Owner until August 12,
`
`2014, to submit its response to the Petition together with any Motion to
`
`Amend the ‘145 Patent. IPR2014-00136, Paper No. 16, at 6. Neither the
`
`initial scheduling order nor the amended scheduling order referred to
`
`below provide for any filing by Petitioner prior to the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response following the Board’s Decision.
`
` Petitioner filed a thirty-four page petition in IPR2014-00950 on June 13,
`
`2014, requesting institution of a second IPR. IPR2014-00950, Paper No.
`
`3.
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
` The ‘950 Petition alleges that all of the claims of the ‘145 Patent are
`
`either anticipated or obvious and specifically, that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-
`
`15, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25-28 are obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,341,311
`
`(“Smith”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,256,747 (“Inohara”). See
`
`IPR2014-00950, Paper No. 3.
`
` Together with the ‘950 Petition, Petitioner filed its Motion for Joinder,
`
`requesting that the Board consider additional argument set forth in the
`
`‘950 Petition in the proceedings of the ‘136 IPR. IPR2014-00950, Paper
`
`No. 4 (motion for joinder).
`
` On July 2nd, Petitioner requested a conference call with the board to
`
`discuss the logistics of joinder in the event Petitioner’s motion was
`
`granted.
`
` On July 8, 2014, the Board, sua sponte, without setting a conference call,
`
`and without first ruling on the motion for joinder, issued an amended
`
`scheduling order in the ‘136 IPR requiring patent owner to file a
`
`preliminary response to the ‘950 Petition by July 31, 2014.
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`
`
` Argument III.
`
`A. The ‘950 Petition is not proper because it is a responsive pleading
`that is not provided for under the rules.
`Joinder should be denied in this case because the petition is not permitted.
`
`Petitioner’s sixty page ‘136 Petition and thirty-four page ‘950 Petition amount to
`
`94 pages of argument. The ‘950 Petition is therefore an impermissible attempt by
`
`the same party to gain more than thirty-four pages of additional argument on the
`
`same claims of the same patent that it challenged in the ‘136 Petition using the
`
`same art that was cited in the ‘136 Petition. Thus, the ‘950 Petition is in blatant
`
`conflict with 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, which sets the page limitation for a petition for
`
`inter partes review at sixty pages.
`
`Petitioner has no excuse for not filing the arguments set forth in its second
`
`petition with its first petition, as Petitioner possessed all of the references asserted
`
`in the ‘950 Petition before filing the ‘136 Petition. Petitioner made a tactical
`
`choice to file the ‘136 Petition in November of 2013 and then wait more than eight
`
`months to file the ‘950 Petition. The ‘950 Petition, under these circumstances, is
`
`not permitted by the rules.
`
`If Petitioner needed additional pages for its petition, Petitioner should have
`
`followed the PTO’s procedures for suspending the page limits. Petitioner could
`
`have contacted the Board and requested suspension of the Rule regarding page
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`limits. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5. It did not. Petitioner could have filed a request for a
`
`waiver of the page limits with the ‘136 Petition and appended the arguments
`
`included in the ‘950 Petition at that time, as the Board’s rules contemplate. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(2). (“Petitions to institute a trial must comply with the stated
`
`page limits but may be accompanied by a motion to waive the page limits.”). It did
`
`not. Instead, Petitioner chose to ignore the Board’s procedures. Petitioner’s
`
`solution was to file the ‘136 Petition as a place-holder and then to file more than
`
`thirty additional pages of arguments after the Board reviewed the ‘136 Petition and
`
`entered its Decision – more than eight months later.
`
`If Petitioner’s motion for joinder is granted, the Board would set an unfair
`
`and unfortunate precedent. A single petitioner would be invited, through abuse of
`
`the joinder rule, to seek advantage and circumvent the rules by staging petitions
`
`that attack the same claims through the filing of serial sixty page petitions. Such an
`
`outcome was clearly not the intent of the joinder provision. In allowing for
`
`joinder, Congress intended to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
`
`every proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). Congress also intended to prevent the
`
`serial harassment of patent holders by the filing of multiple petitions. See Markup
`
`of America Invents Act, (Ex. 2001), page 72:1438-39. Granting Petitioner’s
`
`motion would run counter to these goals by encouraging gamesmanship, adding
`
`burden to the Board, and leading to the serial harassment of patent holders by the
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`filing of multiple petitions by the same party on the same claims at any time.
`
`Petitioner should not be permitted to circumvent the sixty page limit in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and its motion should be denied.
`
`Moreover, as discussed in more detail below, Petitioner has not provided any
`
`reason as to why it could not have asserted the allegations of the ‘950 Petition in
`
`the ‘136 Petition. Both the Smith and Inohara references (the only references cited
`
`in the ‘950 Petition) were cited in the ‘136 Petition, and Petitioner has provided no
`
`justification for failing to have included the allegations of the ‘950 Petition when it
`
`filed the ‘136 Petition. At worst, Petitioner’s filing of the ‘950 Petition is the
`
`product of gamesmanship intended to increase the Patent Owner’s costs in
`
`defending the IPR Petitions (and motions) and to extend the delay of currently
`
`stayed district court litigation involving the ‘145 Patent. At best, Petitioner’s filing
`
`of the ‘950 Petition, which challenges the same claims of the same patent based on
`
`the same references that were relied upon in the ‘136 Petition is a procedural end-
`
`around being used to make additional unauthorized arguments out of turn and to
`
`increase the burden on the Patent Owner in defending the IPR.
`
`Part 42 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets forth the
`
`documents that may be filed or otherwise entered in an IPR prior to the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response. Part 42 provides for a Petition, a Preliminary Response by the
`
`Patent Owner, and a Board Decision. While 37 C.F.R. §42.71 provides for a
`
`7
`
`58153921_5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`request for rehearing in response to a Board Decision, the regulations do not allow
`
`a Petitioner a response to a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. The regulations
`
`also do not allow the Petitioner to comment on or file a pleading that is responsive
`
`to the Board’s Decision, as the next document prescribed by the regulations is the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response. Most importantly, the regulations are not crafted to
`
`enable a Petitioner to increase the burden on a Patent Owner during a proceeding
`
`by inundating them with pleadings and motions. Petitioner’s additional arguments
`
`after the Board Decision and before the Patent Owner’s amount to an end-run that
`
`circumvents the rules that govern these proceedings in a manner that is unjust and
`
`unfair to the Patent Owner.
`
`The ‘950 Petition is based on the same art that was referenced in the ‘136
`
`Petition, no facts have changed since the filing of the ‘136 Petition, and the ‘950
`
`Petition does not include any arguments that Petitioner could not have made when
`
`filing the ‘136 Petition. The Petition merely responds to the Board’s Decision and
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in the ‘136 IPR. Simply put, the ‘950
`
`Petition is essentially a responsive pleading that is not provided for in the Federal
`
`Regulations or in the rules that govern IPR proceedings. See Amended Scheduling
`
`Order, IPR2014-00136, Paper 20, at 6 (which does invite any pleading or motion
`
`from the Petitioner prior to the Patent Owner’s Response). It follows that the ‘950
`
`Petition is not proper and that joinder in this case must be denied.
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`B.
`The ‘950 Petition does not include any arguments that could not
`have been made in the ‘136 Petition
`
` In the district court, the bargain that Petitioner and the other defendants
`
`struck was that if Petitioner’s ‘136 Petition was instituted as to all claims, the stay
`
`would be maintained and, if not, by implication, the stay would be lifted. See C.A.
`
`No. 1:13-1083-RGA D.I. 13 at 8. Granting the ‘950 Petition and motion for
`
`joinder would encourage Petitioner and future litigants to game the system by
`
`holding-back additional arguments (such as the additional arguments that
`
`Petitioner now asserts in the ‘950 Petition) for invalidity in the event that the Board
`
`declines to institute an IPR in whole or in part.
`
`In the first IPR petition challenging the ‘145 Patent, Petitioner asserted that
`
`claims 1-28 and 35 were anticipated by the Tiwana and/or Smith references, and
`
`made other arguments as to other claims based on obviousness over Smith in view
`
`of Inohara, and Tiwana in view of Inohara. See IPR2014-00136, Paper No. 4 at 2,
`
`as shown below:
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`
`
`After reviewing the ‘136 Petition and the Patent Owner’s Response, the
`
`Board declined to institute IPR as to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, 23, and
`
`25-28 of the ‘145 Patent. Now, in the ‘950 Petition, Petitioner asserts for the first
`
`time that these claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Smith in view of
`
`Inohara. There is no doubt that this new argument could have been raised in the
`
`‘136 Petition, in which Petitioner asserted that twenty claims of the ‘145 Patent
`
`were obvious under § 103 over Smith in view of Inohara. IPR2014-00136, Paper 4
`
`(petition) at 2.
`
`The ‘136 Petition did not challenge claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 19, 22-23, and
`
`25-28 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Smith in view of Inohara.
`
`Instead, Petitioner challenged each of these claims as being anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) by Smith and/or Tiwana. Id. Now that the Board has declined to
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`institute IPR proceedings on that basis, Petitioner seeks a “second bite of the
`
`apple” and alleges for the first time that claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 19, 22-23, and 25-
`
`28 are obvious under § 103 over Smith in view of Inohara. See IPR2014-00950,
`
`Paper No. 3:
`
`
`
`Apparently not satisfied with the Board’s Decision, Petitioner now attempts
`
`to complicate the proceedings of the ‘136 IPR by raising new arguments that could
`
`and should have been raised in the ‘136 Petition. The ‘950 Petition should be
`
`denied on that basis alone. See Sony Corporation of America, et al. v. Network-1
`
`Security Solutions, Inc. IPR2013-00386, Paper No. 16, at 6 (declining to grant a
`
`motion for joinder where petitioner provided no reason for, inter alia, not having
`
`asserted arguments that were available to the petitioner when filing a prior petition
`
`for IPR). Nothing prevented Petitioner from making these new arguments
`
`regarding claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 19, 22-23, and 25-28 in its original IPR petition.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should not look favorably on any attempt to force a
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`reconsideration of its prior decision that is not contemplated by the rules and
`
`regulations that govern such proceedings.
`
`Here, the result of granting Petitioner’s motion for joinder would be directly
`
`counter to the express goals of an IPR proceeding. The Board has stated that the
`
`rules relating to inter partes review, “including the rules for joinder, must be
`
`construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`proceeding.” See Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00584, Paper 20 at 2, 3. Granting joinder in this instance would be
`
`fundamentally inconsistent with this holding, and indeed, the PTAB recently
`
`denied joinder in a case based on similar facts, denying a motion for joinder in a
`
`case in which “joinder would have a significant impact on the schedule of the
`
`[Inter Partes Review]” and new grounds of unpatentability were not identified.
`
`See Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc., IPR2014-00271, Paper 20 at 7, 8. See also
`
`Sony Corporation of America, et al. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.
`
`IPR2013-00386, Paper No. 16, at 6.
`
`It would be counter to the rules that govern inter partes review proceedings
`
`and procedurally unfair to grant the ‘950 Petition or joinder to the ‘136 IPR. The
`
`rules do not account for responsive petitions or other filings by Petitioner at this
`
`stage and such pleadings result in the Patent Owner having to go to the expense of
`
`preparing additional oppositions and responses. The ‘950 Petition and motion for
`
`12
`
`58153921_5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`joinder have already impacted the schedule in this case and prejudiced the Patent
`
`holder by resulting in the Patent Owner having to respond to a superfluous petition
`
`on an expedited basis and at considerable expense, before the Board has even
`
`considered this opposition to the motion for joinder. Such prejudice would be
`
`further exacerbated by granting Petitioner’s motion for joinder.
`
`The Patent Owner therefore respectfully requests denial of the ‘950 Petition
`
`and accompanying motion for joinder in the interests of avoiding further prejudice
`
`to the Patent Owner.
`
`IV.
`
` Conclusion
`
`The ‘950 petition is not proper and joinder must therefore be denied.
`
`Moreover, granting the Petition in this matter would effectively sanction the filing
`
`of serial IPR Petitions in cases where a Petitioner desires to interject a response to
`
`a Board Decision or Patent Owner Preliminary Response – a procedural option that
`
`is not consistent with the rules and that is unduly burdensome for the Patent Owner
`
`and the Board.
`
`Joinder should also be denied because Petitioner has not raised any grounds
`
`of unpatentability that could not have been raised when filing the ‘136 Petition
`
`more
`
`than eight months ago, and because granting
`
`joinder under such
`
`circumstances would encourage litigants to withhold grounds for instituting an IPR
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`with an aim toward either delaying litigation or simply causing the Patent Owner to
`
`incur additional costs. The Patent Owner therefore requests that the Board deny
`
`Petitioner’s motion for joinder and dismiss the ‘950 Petition.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 31, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronic signature: /Darren W. Collins/
`Darren W. Collins
`Registration No.: 44,625
`Robert C. Hilton
`Registration No.: 47,649
`Aaron J. Pickell
`Registration No.: 60,614
`McGuireWoods LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Suite 1400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 932-6400
`(214) 932-6499 (Fax)
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`A. Appendix of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit 1009 Complaint, Case No. 1:13-cv-00827-RGA, ECF No. 1.
`Exhibit 2001 Markup of America Invents Act, page 72:1438-39
`Exhibit 2002 Declaration of Mailing as to Service, Case No. 1:13-cv-00827-
`RGA, ECF No. 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`Certification of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on July 31, 2014,
`
`a copy of the foregoing document was served by email upon Petitioner’s counsel as
`
`at the following addresses:
`
`via email:
`
`Eric Buresh (eric.buresh@eriseip.com)
`Mark Lang (mark.lang @eriseip.com)
`and via FedEx to:
`Erise IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`
`Dated: July 31, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronic signature: /Darren W. Collins/
`Darren W. Collins
`Registration No.: 44,625
`Robert C. Hilton
`Registration No.: 47,649
`Aaron J. Pickell
`Registration No.: 60,614
`McGuireWoods LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Suite 1400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 932-6400
`(214) 932-6499 (Fax)
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`58153921_5
`
`16

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket