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. 7,806,896
`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))
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`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
`
`
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
