`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SkyHawke Technologies, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`L&H Concepts, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-_____
`
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED
`INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2014-00438
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner
`
`SkyHawke Technologies, LLC (“SkyHawke” or “Petitioner”) hereby moves for
`
`joinder of the concurrently filed petition for inter partes review of claims 6, 15,
`
`and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,566 (“the ‘566 patent”) with the instituted inter
`
`partes review styled SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC, Case
`
`No. IPR2014-00438 concerning the same patent (“the ‘438 IPR”).
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1. On March 6, 2013, L&H Concepts, LLC (“L&H”) filed a complaint
`
`against SkyHawke in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas alleging that SkyHawke infringed the ‘566 patent.
`
`2. On May 23, 2013, SkyHawke moved to transfer the case from the
`
`Eastern District of Texas to the Southern District of Mississippi. SkyHawke’s
`
`motion was granted on February 19, 2014. The litigation between L&H and
`
`SkyHawke is currently styled L&H Concepts, LLC v. SkyHawke Technologies,
`
`LLC, C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00224-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss.).
`
`3. On August 1, 2013—before the litigation was transferred to the
`
`Southern District of Mississippi—L&H filed infringement contentions under the
`
`Eastern District of Texas’s Local Patent Rules. L&H’s infringement contentions
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`asserted that SkyHawke infringed claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-14, and 17-18, of the ‘566
`
`patent.
`
`4. On February 14, 2014, SkyHawke filed two petitions for inter partes
`
`review collectively targeting all asserted claims of the ‘566 patent. The first
`
`petition, Case No. IPR2014-00437 (“the ‘437 IPR”), challenged method claims 8-
`
`11, 14, and 18. The second petition, the ‘438 IPR, challenged apparatus claims 1-
`
`5, 13, and 17.
`
`5. On May 13, 2014, before an initial status conference was held in the
`
`Southern District of Mississippi, SkyHawke moved to stay the litigation pending
`
`the outcome of the ‘437 and ‘438 IPRs.
`
`6. On May 23, 2014, L&H supplemented its interrogatory responses to
`
`contend that SkyHawke was infringing claims 6 and 16 of the ‘566 patent. L&H
`
`had not asserted these claims in its infringement contentions filed in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas.
`
`7. On June 20, 2014, a telephonic hearing was held on SkyHawke’s
`
`motion to stay before Magistrate Judge Anderson. During that hearing (and in
`
`SkyHawke’s corresponding briefing on the issue), SkyHawke notified counsel for
`
`L&H that it intended to file a supplemental petition for inter partes review against
`
`claims 6 and 16 of the ‘566 patent, and to accompany the petition with a request
`
`for joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8. During the telephonic motion hearing, Magistrate Judge Anderson
`
`determined to grant SkyHawke’s request for a stay, temporarily staying the case
`
`until further order of the Court. Based upon that Order, the parties are to inform
`
`the Court of the status of SkyHawke’s IPR proceedings by September 30, 2014.
`
`The stay shall remain in place until further Order of the Court.
`
`9. On August 21, 2014, the Board instituted trial on claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-
`
`14, and 17-18 of the ‘566 patent. See Case IPR2014-00437, Paper 7 and Case
`
`IPR2014-00438, Paper 7. Specifically, the Board found that SkyHawke had
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and demonstrating that claims
`
`1-5, 8-11, 13-14, and 17-18 are unpatentable over the specified combinations of
`
`Palmer (WO 92/04080), Osamu (GB 2 249 202 A), and Vanden Heuvel et al. (US
`
`5,426,422). See Case IPR2014-00437, Paper 7 at 20 and Case IPR2014-00438,
`
`Paper 7 at 23.
`
`10. On even date herewith, SkyHawke filed a third petition for inter
`
`partes review of the ‘566 patent (“Third Petition”) requesting cancellation of the
`
`additional asserted claims 6 and 16, as well as claim 15, which is materially
`
`identical to claim 16.
`
`11. SkyHawke’s grounds for challenging the patentability of claims 6, 15,
`
`and 16 are based on the same prior art references and grounds upon which the ‘437
`
`and ‘438 IPRs were instituted.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12. SkyHawke’s Third Petition argues that claims 6, 15, and 16 are
`
`unpatentable in view of Palmer, Vanden Heuvel, and Osamu. The same arguments
`
`set forth by SkyHawke in the ‘437 and ‘438 IPRs apply equally to claims 6, 15,
`
`and 16, as these claims do not introduce new features outside of those challenged
`
`in the ‘437 and ‘438 IPRs. For example, claim 6 of the ‘566 patent states that the
`
`claimed apparatus includes “game-interactive golf advice information screens,”
`
`which is redundant to presently challenged claim 8 reciting, in part, “one or more
`
`game-interactive advice/feedback information screens.”
`
`13. Claims 15 and 16 of the ‘566 patent are materially identical to
`
`challenged claims 8 and 14, except for the limitations in claims 15 and 16 reciting
`
`that “the [pre-game or game-interactive, respectively] information screens are
`
`provided with means for selecting non-sequential option screens.” These
`
`limitations are redundant to challenged claims 2 and 3, which recite, inter alia,
`
`“…choice means for non-sequential selection or changing of information screens,”
`
`and “…wherein the choice means is screen-dependent to provide a customized set
`
`of screen-changing options for a displayed information screen.”
`
`For the reasons set forth above, SkyHawke considers the filing of the Third
`
`Petition to be necessary and appropriate.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. GOVERNING RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`(b) Patent Owner’s Action. — An inter partes review may not be instituted if
`the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date
`on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is
`served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time
`limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for
`joinder under subsection (c).
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`(c) Joinder. 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.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) Multiple proceedings and Joinder.
`(b) Request for joinder. Joinder may be requested by a patent owner or
`petitioner. Any request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22,
`no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review
`for which joinder is requested. The time period set forth in § 42.101(b) shall
`not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`In accordance with the Board’s representative order identifying matters to be
`
`addressed in a motion for joinder (see Paper 15 at 4, IPR2013-00004, April 24,
`
`2013), a motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. A motion for joinder must be filed no later than one month
`
`after the institution of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.
`
`
`
`This motion for joinder is timely under Rule 42.122(b), as the ‘438 IPR was
`
`instituted on August 21, 2014, and the instant motion has been filed on or before
`
`September 22, 2014 (September 21, 2014 falls on a Sunday). Similarly, the one
`
`year time bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not apply to requests for joinder
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate. Joinder is appropriate here because it will
`
`promote the efficient determination of the patentability of the ‘566 patent; no new
`
`arguments or grounds of unpatentability are presented in SkyHawke’s Third
`
`Petition; and L&H will not be prejudiced if the concurrently filed petition for inter
`
`partes review is joined with the ‘438 IPR, whereas SkyHawke will be unduly
`
`prejudiced if joinder is denied. See IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 7 (P.T.A.B. July
`
`29, 2013) (granting motion for joinder because “Dell’s Petition raises no new
`
`issues beyond what is already before the Board in the existing proceedings, which
`
`weighs in favor of granting the motion.”); IPR2013-00326, Paper No. 15 at 6 and 7
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept., 24, 2013) (granting motion for joinder because “the two sets of
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims are related closely and involve the same prior art,” and “Petitioner’s
`
`challenge of additional claims 4, 5, and 34 here, appear on this record, to be a
`
`reasonable and timely response to Patent Owner’s litigation posture, as opposed to
`
`a dilatory, unilateral action.”); IPR2013-00109, Paper No. 15 at 2-4 (P.T.A.B. Feb.,
`
`25, 2013) (same).
`
`
`
`First, joinder will promote the efficient determination of the patentability of
`
`the ‘566 patent. As set forth above in Petitioner’s Statement of Material Facts, all
`
`of the prior art references presented in the Third Petition (Palmer, Osamu, and
`
`Vanden Heuvel) have been presented in the ‘438 IPR. Similarly, the same
`
`arguments set forth by SkyHawke in the ‘437 and ‘438 IPRs apply equally to
`
`claims 6, 15, and 16, as these claims do not introduce new features outside of those
`
`already challenged via IPR. See paragraphs 12 and 13, above. Accordingly, the
`
`ground of unpatentability set forth in the Third Petition has a related ground in the
`
`‘437 and ‘438 IPRs, and no new arguments are set forth in the Third Petition, or
`
`the corresponding declaration of Prof. Carl Gutwin.
`
`
`
`Second, there will be no prejudice to L&H from joining the proceedings.
`
`L&H is already defending its patent against the same ground and arguments in the
`
`‘437 and ‘438 IPRs as set forth in the Third Petition. L&H has exercised its
`
`opportunity to preliminarily respond to the unpatentability arguments set forth by
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SkyHawke in view of Palmer, Osamu, and Vanden Heuvel. Thus, there is nothing
`
`new for L&H to address.
`
`
`
`Joinder will save both L&H and SkyHawke costs by avoiding duplicative
`
`efforts in litigating the validity of claims 6 and 16 in the underlying litigation in
`
`view of the same grounds and arguments set forth in the ‘437 and ‘438 IPRs.
`
`Further, the underlying litigation is currently stayed until further order of the
`
`district court. The stay was entered to allow the ‘437 and ‘438 IPRs to proceed to
`
`initial decision, and to allow SkyHawke to request joinder of the concurrently filed
`
`Third Petition. No schedule, or trial date, has been set in the Mississippi litigation.
`
`Even if the stay of the underlying litigation were to be lifted, it is highly likely that
`
`the Board will issue a final determination regarding the patentability of the asserted
`
`claims of the ‘566 patent before trial commences in the district court, thereby
`
`simplifying the issues and saving costs for the parties. And, as set forth below,
`
`L&H will not be delayed in receiving a timely final written decision on the
`
`patentability of claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-18 of the ‘566 patent.
`
`
`
`Third, SkyHawke will suffer undue prejudice if its Third Petition is not
`
`joined to the ‘438 IPR. Within one year of being sued by L&H, SkyHawke
`
`challenged via inter partes review all of the claims of the ‘566 patent that L&H
`
`had asserted against it. In response to SkyHawke’s motion to stay the underlying
`
`litigation, and more than one year from the filing of its complaint for patent
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`infringement, L&H asserted additional claims 6 and 16 against SkyHawke.
`
`However, during the seven months that passed between the filing of its
`
`infringement contentions and the one-year anniversary of its complaint in the
`
`underlying litigation, L&H never attempted to add these claims to the case. L&H’s
`
`tactical decision to belatedly assert claims 6 and 16 against SkyHawke will, absent
`
`joinder, prejudice Petitioner because SkyHawke is otherwise time barred from
`
`challenging these claims before the Board. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`
`
`Moreover, if SkyHawke’s Third Petition is not joined with the ‘438 IPR,
`
`SkyHawke will face a higher burden before the district court of proving invalidity
`
`of claims 6 and 16 (clear and convincing), as opposed to the lower burden
`
`(preponderance of the evidence) that will be used during inter partes review
`
`proceedings of the other challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Having the
`
`same grounds and arguments reviewed under two different evidentiary standards
`
`would increase the potential for inconsistent results, and be prejudicial to
`
`SkyHawke.
`
`
`
`Joinder will not prevent the Board from completing its review of the
`
`‘566 patent within one year. SkyHawke’s Third Petition includes only those
`
`grounds on which its previous IPRs were instituted; namely, unpatentability in
`
`view of the Palmer, Osamu, and Vanden Heuvel references. No new issues are
`
`presented. Each limitation of newly challenged claims 6, 15, and 16 is a repeat of
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`limitations found in previously challenged claims 2, 3, 8, and 14. The reasons for
`
`combining the prior art to render claims 6, 15, and 16 obvious are the same as
`
`those previously set forth by Prof. Gutwin. Thus, joinder will not affect the
`
`schedule in the instituted IPRs, nor increase the complexity of the proceedings in
`
`any way.
`
`
`
`L&H’s discovery and responses with respect to the challenge of claims 1-5,
`
`8-11, 13-14, and 17-18, upon which trial has already been instituted, will apply
`
`equally to claims 6, 15, and 16. SkyHawke agrees to allow L&H to take discovery
`
`of Prof. Gutwin regarding claims 6, 15, and 16 during the patent owner’s initial
`
`discovery period. Thus, while the Board considers SkyHawke’s motion, discovery
`
`can proceed as anticipated and, if joinder is granted, no adjustment to the conduct
`
`of the proceedings in the instituted IPRs will be required.
`
`SkyHawke will also accommodate any reasonable logistical or scheduling
`
`request of L&H in order to facilitate joinder of the proceedings. Accordingly,
`
`briefing and discovery regarding claims 6, 15, and 16 can be conducted within the
`
`discovery schedule set forth in the ‘438 IPR, which is identical to the discovery
`
`schedule set forth in the ‘437 IPR, with little to no impact on the overall trial
`
`schedule.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, SkyHawke respectfully requests that it’s Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of claims 6, 15, and 16 of the ‘566 patent be granted, and
`
`that the proceeding be joined with Case No. IPR2014-00438.
`
`Although SkyHawke does not believe that a fee is required for this motion,
`
`the Patent Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account 15-0030 for any fee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`OBLON SPIVAK
`
`/Thomas J. Fisher/
`Thomas J. Fisher
`Reg. No. 44,681
`
`Scott McKeown
`Reg. No. 42,866
`
`
`
`Christopher Ricciuti
`Reg. No. 65,549
`
`
`
`Alex Englehart
`Reg. No. 62,031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`appurtenant to this filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number
` 22850
`Tel. (703) 413-3000
`Fax. (703) 413-2220
`(OSMMN 02/10)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and
`
`42.105(b) on the Patent Owner by UPS, overnight delivery, of a copy of this
`
`Motion for Joinder at the correspondence address of record for the ‘566 patent:
`
`Jason J Young
`3001 W Big Beaver Road Suite 624
`Troy, Michigan 48084
`
` copy of this Motion for Joinder has also been served by UPS, overnight
`
` A
`
`delivery, on lead and back-up counsel for the Patent Owner as identified in Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices filed in Case Nos. IPR2014-00437 and IPR2014-
`
`00438 at:
`
`David M. Hoffman
`Matthew K. Wernli
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Thomas J. Fisher/
`Thomas J. Fisher
`(Reg. No. 44,681)
`
`Dated: September 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`