`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC.
`ZIMMER, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BONUTTI SKELETAL INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`Patent No. 7,806,896
`Filing Date: November 25, 2003
`Issue Date: October 5, 2010
`Title: KNEE ARTHROPLASTY METHOD
`
`__________________
`
`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
`
`Apart from Further Addressing the Motivation to Combine
`Prior Art References, There Are No New Grounds of
`Unpatentability in Zimmer’s New Petition ......................................... 13
`
`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.54399311.04
`
`-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
`
`claim 43 of U.S. Patent No. 7,806,896 (the “New Petition” involving the “’896
`
`Patent” (Ex. 1001)), filed contemporaneously herewith, joined with the instituted
`
`inter partes review, Zimmer Holdings, Inc. & Zimmer, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal
`
`Innovations LLC, IPR2014-00321 (instituted June 2, 2014) (Ex. 1009), which
`
`involves claims 40-42 and 44-47 of the ’896 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 IPR2014-00321.
`
`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, including the ’896 Patent, 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.54399311.04
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`3. With respect to the ’896 Patent, Zimmer’s one-year deadline under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) was January 4, 2014.
`
`4.
`
`On January 3, 2014, Zimmer filed a petition seeking IPR of claims 40-
`
`47 of the ’896 Patent. (See IPR2014-00321, Paper 1.1)
`
`5.
`
`At the time Zimmer filed its petition in IPR2014-00321, Zimmer
`
`was—and at present remains—unaware of the claims of the ’896 Patent that
`
`Bonutti intends to assert against Zimmer in the Concurrent Litigation. Zimmer
`
`drafted its petition in IPR2014-00321 without certainty regarding which claims of
`
`the ’896 Patent Bonutti may, in the future, attempt to assert against Zimmer.
`
`6.
`
`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 ’896 Patent. (See Concurrent Litigation, Dkt. No. 36 (Ex. 1011).)
`
`7.
`
`On April 7, 2014, the Court granted the joint motion to stay the
`
`Concurrent Litigation, (see id. Dkt. No. 45 (Ex. 1012)), and, as such, the
`
`Concurrent Litigation is presently stayed.
`
`1 On January 24, 2014, pursuant to the Board’s Notice, (see IPR2014-00321,
`
`Paper 4, at 2), Zimmer filed a corrected petition, (see id., Paper 7), which the
`
`Board subsequently accepted, (see id., Paper 9). Going forward, citations
`
`herein to Zimmer’s “petition” will be citations to the corrected petition.
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`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. 1012, at 7 (citations omitted).)
`
`9.
`
`On June 2, 2014, the Board instituted IPR in IPR2014-00321 for
`
`claims 40-42 and 44-47—but not claim 43—of the ’896 Patent. (See Ex. 1009,
`
`IPR2014-00321, Paper 13, at 2, 10-11.)
`
`10. Claim 43 depends from independent claim 40.
`
`11. Among other grounds, Zimmer’s petition in IPR2014-00321 sought
`
`review of claim 40 on the ground that it was obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over
`
`PCT International Publication No. WO 93/25157 to Radermacher (the
`
`“Radermacher ’157 Publication”) (Ex. 1003) in view of Radermacher et al.,
`
`Computer-Integrated Orthopaedic Surgery: Connection of Planning and
`
`Execution in Surgical Intervention (the “Radermacher Article”) (Ex. 1004). (See
`
`IPR2014-00321, Paper 7, at 4.) And, among other grounds, Zimmer sought review
`
`of claim 43 on the grounds that it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over either
`
`(a) the Radermacher ’157 Publication in combination with either or both U.S.
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 4,567,885 to Androphy (“Androphy”) (Ex. 1005) and Zimmer’s
`
`surgical technique guide entitled “casey total knee,” dated 1976 (“Casey”); or (b)
`
`the combination of the Radermacher ’157 Publication and the Radermacher Article
`
`in further combination with either or both Androphy and Casey. (Id.)
`
`12. The Board instituted IPR on claim 40 on the basis that Zimmer had
`
`“demonstrated a reasonable likelihood” that claim 40 would have been obvious in
`
`view of the Radermacher ’157 Publication and the Radermacher Article.” (See Ex.
`
`Ex. 1009, IPR2014-00321, Paper 13, at 7.)
`
`13.
`
`In declining to institute IPR proceedings as to claim 43, the Board
`
`found an insufficient “show[ing that] it would have been obvious to combine the
`
`teachings of those references [set forth in ground (b) in paragraph 11, above] in a
`
`particular manner to arrive at the claimed invention.” (Id. at 9.)
`
`14. Concurrently with this Motion, Zimmer files its New Petition, which
`
`challenges only claim 43.
`
`15. Zimmer’s New Petition includes an explicit discussion regarding, and
`
`evidence supporting, the motivation to combine the references Zimmer used to
`
`challenge claim 43 in IPR2014-00321 and, as such, directly addresses the issue
`
`that caused the Board to decline to institute trial on claim 43 in IPR2014-00321.
`
`16. Zimmer’ New Petition does not rely on any new invalidity grounds or
`
`prior art references over those that were presented in its petition in IPR2014-
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`00321; indeed, Zimmer’s New Petition challenges claim 43 on only one of the
`
`multiple invalidity grounds Zimmer presented in IPR2014-00321. Specifically,
`
`Zimmer challenges claim 43 as obvious in view of the combination of the
`
`Radermacher ’157 Publication and the Radermacher Article in further combination
`
`with Androphy—a portion of ground (b) in paragraph 11, above.
`
`17. The sole ground for challenging dependent claim 43 in Zimmer’s New
`
`Petition relies in part on the combination of the Radermacher ’157 Publication and
`
`the Radermacher Article, on which the Board based its decision to institute trial on
`
`underlying independent claim 40.
`
`18. The New Petition relies, in part, on a declaration of Arthur G.
`
`Erdman, Ph.D, (Ex. 1010), the same expert who provided testimony in support of
`
`Zimmer’s arguments in IPR2014-00321 (Ex. 1002). Dr. Erdman’s additional
`
`testimony addresses only the single invalidity ground asserted for claim 43 in the
`
`New Petition.
`
`19. On June 23, 2014, Bonutti filed a Notice of Filing of Disclaimer
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) in which Bonutti stated that it had formally disclaimed
`
`claim 40 of the ’896 Patent. (See IPR2014-00321, Paper 15.)
`
`20. 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 id., Paper 14, at 6.)
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-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
`
`IPR2014-00321, 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.54399311.04
`
`-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.54399311.04
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`Both petitions in question involve the same two parties, Zimmer and
`
`Bonutti, and the same patent, the ’896 Patent.
`
`•
`
`The New Petition addresses the motivation-to-combine issue the
`
`Board cited as the sole reason for which it did not institute trial on claim 43 in
`
`IPR2014-00321. (See Ex. 1009, IPR2014-00321, Paper 13, at 9.) Specifically, the
`
`New Petition includes an explicit discussion regarding, and evidence supporting,
`
`the motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed to
`
`combine the Radermacher ’157 Publication and the Radermacher Article with
`
`Androphy to obtain each element of claim 43.
`
`•
`
`The New Petition challenges only a single, dependent claim of the
`
`’896 Patent, claim 43, on a single obviousness ground based on the combination of
`
`the Radermacher ’157 Publication and the Radermacher Article with Androphy.
`
`Claim 43 depends from claim 40, and the Board instituted trial for claim 40 on the
`
`basis of obviousness in view of the Radermacher ’157 Publication and the
`
`Radermacher Article. (See id. at 7.) Moreover, on June 23, 2014, three weeks
`
`after the Board instituted trial in IPR2014-00321, Bonutti disclaimed claim 40.
`
`(See IPR2014-00321, Paper 15.) Thus, neither the Board nor Bonutti will need to
`
`perform additional analysis for claim 40 in the course of addressing claim 43 in the
`
`New Petition. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2013-00250,
`
`Paper 25, at 2 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2013) (granting joinder where the to-be-joined
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`“proceeding challenges claims that are dependent on claims challenged in [the
`
`instituted proceeding]”). And only a limited amount of additional effort will be
`
`required for Bonutti to address claim 43. 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).
`
`•
`
`The New Petition relies on only three of the prior art references and
`
`only one of the invalidity grounds—but, indeed, less than all of the references and
`
`grounds—Zimmer relied upon to challenge claim 43 in IPR2014-00321: the
`
`Radermacher ’157 Publication, the Radermacher Article, and Androphy. Thus,
`
`both the Board and Bonutti are already familiar with the references cited, and the
`
`sole ground relied upon, in the New Petition. See Ariosa Diagnostics, IPR2013-
`
`00250, Paper 25, at 5 (granting joinder in part because “[t]here is an overlap in the
`
`cited prior art”); Samsung, IPR2014-00557, Paper 10, at 17-18 (granting joinder,
`
`noting that the relevance of prior art cited in the to-be-joined petition “is addressed
`
`already in the context of trials concerning the unpatentability of certain claims in
`
`related proceedings”); 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”).
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`Zimmer’s expert, Dr. Erdman, provided testimony in IPR2014-00321,
`
`and his additional testimony supporting the New Petition addresses only the single
`
`invalidity ground asserted for claim 43. 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 attempts to assert claim 43 against Zimmer in the Concurrent
`
`Litigation.
`
`•
`
`Finally, because Zimmer’s one-year deadline to file an IPR petition on
`
`the ’896 Patent without seeking joinder has passed (January 4, 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
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`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, prior art, and declarant are
`
`involved in the New Petition and the instituted trial in IPR2014-00321. Also 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 IPR2014-00321 is due. (See
`
`IPR2014-00321, Paper 14, at 6.) Moreover, Bonutti did not file a substantive
`
`preliminary response in IPR2014-00321, 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 claim 43.
`
`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
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`All of these public policy considerations further support joinder, because, as
`
`shown in the New Petition, numerous reasons would have motivated one of skill in
`
`the art to combine the Radermacher ’157 Publication and the Radermacher Article
`
`with Androphy to obtain claim 43, which is, therefore, obvious.
`
`B. Apart from Further Addressing the Motivation to Combine Prior
`Art References, There Are No New Grounds of Unpatentability in
`Zimmer’s New Petition
`
`As discussed above, the New Petition challenges only claim 43 of the ’896
`
`Patent, which was challenged in IPR2014-00321, on a single invalidity ground
`
`based on three prior art references, all of which were presented in IPR2014-00321.
`
`(See IPR2014-00321, Paper 7, at 4.) Because the Board identified an insufficient
`
`showing of motivation to combine the references in question as the sole reason for
`
`which it declined to institute trial on claim 43 in IPR2014-00321, (see Ex. 1009,
`
`IPR2014-00321, Paper 13, at 9), the New Petition includes an explicit discussion
`
`regarding, and evidence supporting, the motivation to combine the references.
`
`However, the discussion and evidence in question adds only a deminimus
`
`substantive issue 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 of its cases involving the ’896 Patent on the same
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-00321,
`
`(see paper 14, at 6), could be adjusted as follows to accommodate joinder:
`
`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 IPR2014-00321 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 IPR2014-00321 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).
`
`US.54399311.04
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`New Petition challenges only a single dependent claim based on a single
`
`previously presented ground and three previously presented 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 IPR2014-00321
`
`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
`
`IPR2014-00321 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.54399311.04
`
`-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
`
`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
`
`