IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC.
`ZIMMER, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BONUTTI SKELETAL INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`Patent No. 7,837,736
`Filing Date: October 30, 2007
`Issue Date: November 23, 2010
`Title: MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL SYSTEMS AND METHODS
`
`__________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`__________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED
`INSTITUTED INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC.
`ZIMMER, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BONUTTI SKELETAL INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`Patent No. 7,837,736
`Filing Date: October 30, 2007
`Issue Date: November 23, 2010
`Title: MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL SYSTEMS AND METHODS
`
`__________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`__________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED
`INSTITUTED INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 1
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE RULES .................................. 6
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 7
`
`A. Multiple Reasons Show that Joinder Is Appropriate ............................ 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Considerations of Efficiency Support Joinder ............................ 7
`
`Lack of Undue Prejudice to Patent Owner Supports
`Joinder ....................................................................................... 11
`
`Public Policy Considerations Support Joinder ......................... 11
`
`The New Grounds of Unpatentability in Zimmer’s New Petition
`Attack Only Dependent Claims ........................................................... 12
`
`Joinder Would Not Unduly Delay the Resolution of Either
`Proceeding and Any Delay Could Be Ameliorated Through
`Consolidation of Due Dates, Briefing, and Discovery ........................ 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioners
`
`Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and Zimmer, Inc. (collectively, “Zimmer” or “Petitioners”)
`
`seek with this Motion to have their Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 23-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,837,736 (the “New Petition” involving the “’736
`
`Patent” (Ex. 1001)), filed contemporaneously herewith, joined with the instituted
`
`inter partes review, Zimmer Holdings, Inc. & Zimmer, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal
`
`Innovations LLC, IPR2014-00191 (instituted June 2, 2014) (Ex. 1011), which
`
`involves claims 15-22, 26-28, and 31-36 of the ’736 Patent. If the Board deems it
`
`a necessary concurrent measure in granting this Motion, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a), Zimmer further requests that the Board
`
`consolidate the matter involving the New Petition with IPR2014-00191.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On September 10, 2012, Patent Owner, Bonutti Skeletal Innovations
`
`LLC (“Bonutti” or “Patent Owner”), filed a lawsuit against Zimmer involving
`
`three patents generally related to knee implants and implantation methods, Bonutti
`
`Skeletal Innovations LLC v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. & Zimmer, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-
`
`01107-GMS (D. Del.) (the “Concurrent Litigation”).
`
`2.
`
`Zimmer received service of Bonutti’s Complaint in the Concurrent
`
`Litigation on January 4, 2013.
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`On January 15, 2013, Bonutti filed an Amended Complaint in the
`
`Concurrent Litigation, which included claims directed to three additional patents
`
`generally related to knee implants and implantation methods, including the ’736
`
`Patent.
`
`4.
`
`Zimmer received service of Bonutti’s Amended Complaint in the
`
`Concurrent Litigation on the same day it was filed, January 15, 2013.
`
`5. With respect to the ’736 Patent, Zimmer’s one-year deadline under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) was January 15, 2014.
`
`6.
`
`On November 22, 2013, Zimmer filed a petition seeking IPR of
`
`claims 15-28 and 31-36 of the ’736 Patent. (See IPR2014-00191, Paper 1.)
`
`7.
`
`At the time Zimmer filed its petition in IPR2014-00191, Zimmer
`
`was—and at present remains—unaware of the claims of the ’736 Patent that
`
`Bonutti intends to assert against Zimmer in the Concurrent Litigation. Zimmer
`
`drafted its petition in IPR2014-00191 without certainty regarding which claims of
`
`the ’736 Patent Bonutti may, in the future, attempt to assert against Zimmer.
`
`8.
`
`On January 22, 2014, Zimmer and others adverse to Bonutti in the
`
`Concurrent Litigation jointly moved to stay the litigation pending the outcome of
`
`various IPR petitions involving patents asserted in the Concurrent Litigation,
`
`including the ’736 Patent. (See Concurrent Litigation, Dkt. No. 36 (Ex. 1016).)
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`On April 7, 2014, the Court granted the joint motion to stay the
`
`Concurrent Litigation, (see id. Dkt. No. 45 (Ex. 1017)), and, as such, the
`
`Concurrent Litigation is presently stayed.
`
`10.
`
`In granting the stay, the Court found that “[d]espite the Defendants’
`
`requests for specificity, Bonutti did not clearly state before the IPR deadline which
`
`of the hundreds of claims in its multiple patents it intended to assert against the
`
`Defendants. Under the circumstances, the Defendants’ use of the year-long period
`
`[after being served with Bonutti’s complaint, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b),] to
`
`attempt to determine exactly which claims Bonutti would ultimately assert was
`
`reasonable.” (Ex. 1017, at 7 (citations omitted).)
`
`11. On June 2, 2014, the Board instituted IPR in IPR2014-00191 for
`
`claims 15-22, 26-28, and 31-36—but not claims 23-25—of the ’736 Patent. (See
`
`Ex. 1011, IPR2014-00191, Paper 12, at 2, 17.)
`
`12. Claims 23 and 25 each depend from independent claim 15, and claim
`
`24 further depends from claim 23.
`
`13. Among other grounds, Zimmer’s petition in IPR2014-00191 sought
`
`review of claim 15 on the ground that it was anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,755,801 to Walker et al. (“Walker”) (Ex. 1002) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See
`
`IPR2014-00191, Paper 1, at 3-4.) In addition, Zimmer sought review of claims 23-
`
`25 on the basis of various grounds, several of which included Walker. (Id.)
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`14. The Board instituted IPR on claim 15 on the basis that Zimmer had
`
`“demonstrated a reasonable likelihood” that Walker anticipates the claim. (See Ex.
`
`1011, IPR2014-00191, Paper 12, at 10-12.)
`
`15.
`
`In declining to institute IPR proceedings as to claim 25, the Board
`
`found that “claim 25 contains a means-plus-function limitation”—“means
`
`associated with said protrusion to prevent a separation of said base sliding side and
`
`said moveable sliding side”—but declined to construe that limitation because
`
`Zimmer did not provide a proposed construction. (Id. at 8-9.) “For this reason
`
`alone,” the Board stated that it was “not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that claim 25 of the ’736
`
`Patent is unpatentable as alleged.” (Id. at 12-13.)
`
`16.
`
`In declining to institute IPR proceedings as to claims 23 and 24, the
`
`Board stated that it was not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have considered U.S. Patent No. 6,068,658 to Insall et al. “to disclose or suggest
`
`the ‘dovetail joint’ recited in claims 23 and 24.” (Id. at 16.)
`
`17. Concurrently with this Motion, Zimmer files its New Petition, which
`
`challenges claim 23-25.
`
`18. Zimmer’s New Petition includes a claim construction analysis for the
`
`means-plus-function limitation of claim 25, as well as prior art disclosing the
`
`“dovetail joint” of claims 23 and 24. As such, Zimmer’s New Petition directly
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`addresses the issues that caused the Board to decline to institute trial on claims 23-
`
`25 in IPR2014-00191.
`
`19. Zimmer’s New Petition relies on Walker and one reference that
`
`Zimmer did not present in its petition IPR2014-00191. First, Zimmer challenges
`
`claim 25 on the ground of anticipation by Walker. Second, Zimmer challenges
`
`claims 23-25 on the ground of obviousness over Walker in view of U.S. Patent
`
`4,340,978 to Buechel et al. (“Buechel”) (Ex. 1012).
`
`20. Both grounds for challenging dependent claims 23-25 in Zimmer’s
`
`New Petition rely on Walker, on which the Board based its decision to institute
`
`trial on underlying independent claim 15.
`
`21. The New Petition relies, in part, on a declaration of Arthur G.
`
`Erdman, Ph.D, (Ex. 1013), the same expert who provided testimony in support of
`
`Zimmer’s arguments in IPR2014-00191 (Ex. 1005). Dr. Erdman’s additional
`
`testimony addresses only the two invalidity grounds asserted for claims 23-25 in
`
`the New Petition.
`
`22. This Motion and Zimmer’s New Petition are being filed over five
`
`weeks before Patent Owner’s first deadline, Due Date 1, on August 6, 2014, under
`
`the Board’s Scheduling Order. (See IPR2014-00191, Paper 13, at 6.)
`
`
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE RULES
`The Board has discretion to join a properly filed IPR petition to a previously
`
`instituted IPR proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Va. Innovation Scis., Inc., IPR2014-00557, Paper 10, at
`
`14-16 (P.T.A.B. June 13, 2014); Sony Corp. v. Yissum Res. & Dev. Co. of the
`
`Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, IPR2013-00326, Paper 15, at 3-4 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 24,
`
`2013); Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, at 4-6
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 29, 2013); Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109,
`
`Paper 15, at 3-4 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013).
`
`This Motion is timely filed within one month after institution of the trial in
`
`IPR2014-00191, and the time periods set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.101(b) do not apply to Zimmer’s New Petition because it is accompanied by
`
`this request for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). “The Board
`
`will determine whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
`
`the particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural issues, and other
`
`considerations.” Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, at 3; see Samsung, IPR2014-
`
`00557, Paper 10, at 16. The Board’s trial rules, including the rules for joinder,
`
`must be “construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`As the moving party, Zimmer has the burden of proof in establishing
`
`entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b).
`
`A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted
`in the petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on
`the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically
`how briefing and discovery may be simplified.
`
`Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, at 4. In the case of joinder, the Board may adjust
`
`the one-year time period for a final determination in an IPR. Id. at 3; 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c); Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, at 3; Microsoft,
`
`IPR2013-00109, Paper 15, at 4. Moreover, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(a), the Board has discretion to concurrently join and consolidate a
`
`matter involving a to-be-joined petition with the pending proceeding to which
`
`joinder is sought. See Samsung, IPR2014-00557, Paper 10, at 16-17.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Multiple Reasons Show that Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`Joinder is appropriate here for reasons including efficiency, lack of undue
`
`prejudice to Patent Owner, and public policy considerations.
`
`1. Considerations of Efficiency Support Joinder
`Several factors support that joinder will allow for efficiencies in these
`
`proceedings and, therefore, is appropriate here:
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`Both petitions in question involve the same two parties, Zimmer and
`
`Bonutti, and the same patent, the ’736 Patent.
`
`•
`
`The New Petition addresses the two reasons the Board cited for
`
`declining to institute trial on claims 23-25 in IPR2014-00191. (See Ex. 1011,
`
`IPR2014-00191, Paper 12, at 12-13.) Specifically, the New Petition explicitly
`
`identifies the “dovetail joint” element of claims 23 and 24 in the prior art and
`
`construes claim 25’s means-plus-function limitation in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3).
`
`•
`
`The New Petition challenges only three dependent claims of the ’736
`
`Patent, claims 23-25. Zimmer challenges claim 25 on two grounds based on
`
`Walker—one ground on the basis of anticipation by Walker, and the other ground
`
`on the basis of obviousness over Walker in view of Buechel; Zimmer also uses the
`
`latter ground to challenge claims 23 and 24. All three claims ultimately depend
`
`from claim 15, and the Board instituted trial for claim 15 on the basis of
`
`anticipation by Walker. (See Ex. 1011, IPR2014-00191, Paper 12, at 10-12.)
`
`Thus, neither the Board nor Bonutti will need to perform additional analysis for
`
`claim 15 in the course of addressing claims 23-25 in the New Petition. Moreover,
`
`both the Board and Bonutti are already familiar with Walker. See Ariosa
`
`Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2013-00250, Paper 25, at 2, 5 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Sept. 3, 2013) (granting joinder where the to-be-joined “proceeding challenges
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`claims that are dependent on claims challenged in [the instituted proceeding]” and
`
`“[t]here is an overlap in the cited prior art”); Sony Corp. v. Yissum Res. & Dev. Co.
`
`of the Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, IPR2013-00327, Paper 15, at 5 (P.T.A.B. Sept.
`
`24, 2013) (granting joinder in part because “[t]here is substantial overlap in the
`
`asserted references . . . and the declaration evidence to be considered . . . in the
`
`joined proceedings”). And only a limited amount of additional effort will be
`
`required for Bonutti to address claims 23-25. See Samsung, IPR2014-00557, Paper
`
`10, at 18 (noting that “public interest” considerations “strongly outweighed” “the
`
`minimal additional amount of work required on the part of Patent Owner to
`
`address” claims in a to-be-joined petition).
`
`•
`
`Zimmer’s expert, Dr. Erdman, provided testimony in IPR2014-00191,
`
`and his additional testimony supporting the New Petition addresses only the
`
`invalidity grounds asserted for claims 23-25. See Ariosa Diagnostics, IPR2013-
`
`00250, Paper 25, at 3 (granting joinder in part because “the Declarations relied
`
`upon by [the petitioner] in the instant proceedings were made by Declarants . . .
`
`who also submitted Declarations that were relied upon by [the petitioner] in [the
`
`instituted proceeding]”); Sony, IPR2013-00327, Paper 15, at 5.
`
`•
`
`Granting this motion will simplify the Concurrent Litigation to the
`
`extent Bonutti asserts claims 23-25 against Zimmer in the Concurrent Litigation.
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`Finally, because Zimmer’s one-year deadline to file an IPR petition on
`
`the ’736 Patent without seeking joinder has passed (January 15, 2014), Zimmer
`
`would be prejudiced absent joinder, because its New Petition would be barred
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). As noted in prior orders in
`
`which the Board has granted joinder, “[t]his is an important consideration.” Sony,
`
`IPR2013-00326, Paper 15, at 4; Microsoft, IPR2013-00109, Paper 15, at 4.
`
`The Board has granted joinder in similar circumstances. In Arisoa, the
`
`Board granted joinder of a second petition that challenged claims that depend from
`
`claims challenged in a previously instituted trial. IPR2013-00250, Paper 24, at 2.
`
`The Board found joinder was appropriate because the second proceeding involved
`
`the same patents and parties and “much of the same prior art that was relied upon”
`
`in the first trial, where the only additional prior art cited in the second petition was
`
`added to address the limitations of the dependent claims. Id. at 2, 5. Also
`
`persuasive was that the declarations in the second proceeding were from the same
`
`declarants as in the first proceeding. Id. at 3.
`
`Here, as in Ariosa, the same patent, parties, and declarant are involved in the
`
`New Petition and the instituted trial in IPR2014-00191, and the only additional
`
`prior art—Buechel—is added to address limitations of dependent claims 23-25 in
`
`the event the Board does not find all of those limitations present in Walker. Also
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`like Ariosa, Petitioner has been diligent and timely in filing its motion. See id. at
`
`5. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, joinder is appropriate.
`
`2. Lack of Undue Prejudice to Patent Owner Supports Joinder
`Any prejudice to Bonutti will be minimal—and certainly not undue—for the
`
`reasons discussed above and because Zimmer has filed this Motion, and its New
`
`Petition, over five weeks before Bonutti’s response to IPR2014-00191 is due. (See
`
`IPR2014-00191, Paper 13, at 6.) Moreover, Bonutti did not file a preliminary
`
`response in IPR2014-00191, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, and, as such, has not yet
`
`expended significant resources addressing before the Board Zimmer’s arguments
`
`with respect to claims 23-25.
`
`3. Public Policy Considerations Support Joinder
`Joinder is further supported by public policy considerations and the public
`
`interest in seeing invalid patents formally invalidated. The Board is charged with
`
`considering the “effect . . . on the economy” and “the integrity of the patent
`
`system,” among other considerations, when implementing and applying its rules,
`
`including those relating to joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b); see also Changes to
`
`Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48679,
`
`48680 (Aug. 14, 2012) (stating that “[t]he purpose of the AIA and [37 C.F.R. Part
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`42] is,” in part, “to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that
`
`will improve patent quality”).
`
`In addition to the polices that explicitly guide the Board, the Supreme Court
`
`has made clear that there is an “important public interest in permitting full and free
`
`competition in the use of ideas which are in reality a part of the public domain”
`
`and a corresponding “strong federal policy favoring free competition in ideas
`
`which do not merit patent protection.” Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 656, 670
`
`(1969). The Supreme Court recently confirmed these policies, stating that
`
`although the “public interest . . . favors the maintenance of a well-functioning
`
`patent system,” “the public also has a paramount interest in seeing that patent
`
`monopolies . . . are kept within their legitimate scope.” Medtronic, Inc. v.
`
`Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843, 851-52 (2014) (quotations
`
`omitted).
`
`All of these important public policy considerations further support joinder,
`
`because, as shown in the New Petition, claim 25 reads on Walker and is anticipated
`
`or, at the very least, like claims 23 and 24, reads on the combination of Walker and
`
`Buechel and is obvious.
`
`B.
`
`The New Grounds of Unpatentability in Zimmer’s New Petition
`Attack Only Dependent Claims
`
`As discussed above, the New Petition challenges only three dependent
`
`claims of the ’736 Patent—all of which were challenged in IPR2014-00191—on
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`two invalidity grounds based on two prior art references, Walker and Buechel. The
`
`first ground, anticipation of claim 25 by Walker, was presented in IPR2014-00191.
`
`(See IPR2014-00191, Paper 1, at 3-4.) The second ground, obviousness of each
`
`claim over Walker in view of Buechel, was not presented in IPR2014-00191.
`
`Further, because the Board identified the lack of a construction of the means-plus-
`
`function limitation in claim 25 as the sole reason for which it declined to institute
`
`trial on claim 25 in IPR2014-00191, (see Ex. 1011, IPR2014-00191, Paper 12, at
`
`12-13), the New Petition includes a construction for that limitation in accordance
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Nonetheless, the inclusion of Buechel in an
`
`obviousness combination with Walker and the claim construction in question add
`
`only deminimus substantive issues in the New Petition.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Would Not Unduly Delay the Resolution of Either
`Proceeding and Any Delay Could Be Ameliorated Through
`Consolidation of Due Dates, Briefing, and Discovery
`
`To the extent the Board decides to institute trial on the New Petition,
`
`Zimmer will agree to place both cases involving the ’736 Patent on the same post-
`
`institution schedule. Indeed, Zimmer is willing to forfeit a reasonable portion of its
`
`reply period to provide Bonutti sufficient time to address the New Petition and this
`
`Motion. In particular, the schedule for Due Dates 1-3 in IPR2014-00191, (see
`
`paper 13, at 6), could be adjusted as follows to accommodate joinder:
`
`
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial Deadline
`
`Current Date
`
`Proposed Adjusted Date
`
`Due Date 1
`
`Due Date 2
`
`Due Date 3
`
`August 6, 2014
`
`September 5, 2014
`
`October 10, 2014
`
`October 24, 2014
`
`November 10, 2014
`
`November 17, 2014
`
`The proposed adjustment to Due Date 1 would give Bonutti an additional month to
`
`file its response in IPR2014-00191 and provide it with sufficient time to file any
`
`preliminary response to the New Petition and any response to this Motion.
`
`Zimmer also does not oppose consolidation of both proceedings, in full or in
`
`part, to accomplish consolidated briefing and discovery, including depositions, in
`
`both proceedings. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a). Further,
`
`Zimmer will accommodate any reasonable logistical or scheduling request of
`
`Bonutti in order to accommodate joinder of the proceedings. Thus, joining the
`
`New Petition with IPR2014-00191 will not unduly delay resolution of those
`
`proceedings and will help “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of
`
`the proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(b).
`
`Finally, Zimmer submits that although the Board could, if necessary,
`
`exercise its discretion to adjust the one-year time period for a final determination in
`
`the joined proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c); Dell,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, at 3; Microsoft, IPR2013-00109, Paper 15, at 4, such an
`
`adjustment should not be necessary here to accommodate joinder given that the
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`New Petition challenges only a single dependent claim based on two previously
`
`presented grounds and prior art references.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, Zimmer respectfully requests that the Board
`
`(1) grant the present Motion and join Zimmer’s New Petition with IPR2014-00191
`
`pursuant to Rule 42.122(b), and (2) if the Board deems it necessary to effect
`
`joinder, concurrently consolidate the matter involving the New Petition with
`
`IPR2014-00191 pursuant to Rule 42.122(a).
`
`Dated: June 30, 2014
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/s/ Walter C. Linder
`Walter C. Linder
`Reg. No. 31,707
`Customer No. 25764
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`90 South Seventh Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
`Telephone: (612) 766-8801
`Facsimile:
`(612) 766-1600
`Walter.Linder@FaegreBD.com
`
`US.54396333.05
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that I caused a true and
`correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Joinder to Related Instituted Inter Partes
`Review to be served on June 30, 2014, via Federal Express Priority Overnight
`service and via e-mail, as a PDF file attachment, on the following:
`
`
`
`Cary Kappel
`William Gehris
`DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC
`485 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`ckappel@ddkpatent.com
`wgehris@ddkpatent.com
`
`
`
`Dated: June 30, 2014
`
`
`
`/s/ Walter C. Linder
`Walter C. Linder
`Reg. No. 31,707
`Customer No. 25764
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`90 South Seventh Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
`Telephone: (612) 766-8801
`Facsimile:
`(612) 766-1600
`Walter.Linder@FaegreBD.com
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
