`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SkyHawke Technologies, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`L&H Concepts, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. Material Facts in Dispute ................................................................................... 1
`
`II. L&H asserts that joinder is inappropriate and should be denied. ...................... 2
`
`A. L&H will be unduly prejudiced if the concurrently filed 1485
`Petition is joined with the instituted 438 Petition, because joinder
`will substantially increase costs and likely delay resolution of the
`instituted IPRs .................................................................................. 3
`
`B. SkyHawke will not suffer undue prejudice if joinder is denied,
`because SkyHawke had sufficient knowledge, information, and
`resources at the outset of these proceedings to raise validity
`challenges against all claims of the ’566 patent in the 437/438
`Petitions. ........................................................................................... 7
`
`C. The Board should deny joinder as a matter of public policy,
`because granting joinder in this instance may encourage future
`Petitioners to withhold claim validity challenges
`opportunistically. ........................................................................... 10
`
`III. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Sony Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Network-1 Security Solutions,
`Inc.,
`IPR2013-00495 (September 16, 2013), Paper 13 ........................................... 2, 10
`
`ZTE Corp. and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc.,
`IPR2013-00454 (September 25, 2013), Paper 12 ................................................. 9
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 15(a)(3) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R §42.24(a) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), the patent owner, L&H Concepts, LLC
`
`(“L&H” or “Patent Owner”), hereby submits the following Opposition in response
`
`to the Petitioner’s motion for joinder (“SkyHawke’s Motion”) of the concurrently
`
`filed petition, SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC, Case No.
`
`IPR2014 01485 (“the 1485 Petition”), for inter partes review of claims 6, 15, and 16
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,566 (“the ʼ566 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 Petition”).
`
` Patent Owner respectfully requests that this Board deny SkyHawke’s
`
`Motion. For the reasons set forth below, Patent Owner considers the 1485 Petition
`
`and motion for joinder to be unnecessary and inappropriate.
`
`I. MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`With regard to the Statement of Material Facts presented by SkyHawke (see
`
`SkyHawke’s Motion, Pages 1-4), L&H disputes the characterization of the
`
`previously challenged claims as “materially identical” to the newly challenged
`
`claims 6, 15, and 16. See SkyHawke’s Motion, Page 4. Additionally, SkyHawke’s
`
`statement of material facts claims that no initial status conference was held in the
`
`Southern District of Mississippi. In fact, the parties did confer with Magistrate Judge
`
`Anderson on May 14, 2014. Though the conference was continued for further
`
`discussion at a later date, its commencement served to reopen discovery, allowing
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`L&H to amend its interrogatory responses to identify additional claims of the ’566
`
`patent which L&H had recently determined to be infringed.
`
`II. L&H ASSERTS THAT JOINDER IS INAPPROPRIATE AND
`SHOULD BE DENIED.
`
`While joinder may be appropriate in some cases, the facts of this case strongly
`
`indicate that joinder is not appropriate here. See Sony Corp. and Hewlett-Packard
`
`Co. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00495 (September 16, 2013),
`
`Paper 13 at 8 (clarifying that joinder is not automatic, and “the fact that joinder is
`
`permitted in one case under one set of facts does not mean it will be allowed in
`
`another case under a different set of facts.”). First, L&H will be required to expend
`
`considerable additional costs and suffer unilateral prejudice if the concurrently filed
`
`petition for inter partes review is joined with the 438 IPR. Second, SkyHawke will
`
`not suffer undue prejudice if the concurrently filed petition for inter partes review is
`
`not joined to the 438 IPR. Finally, the Board should deny joinder as a matter of
`
`public policy and take a position that advocates the filing of procedurally efficient
`
`and concise petitions. Granting joinder in this instance will encourage future
`
`Petitioners to withhold claim validity challenges opportunistically, only to raise
`
`them in a procedurally disruptive manner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`
`A. L&H will be unduly prejudiced if the concurrently filed 1485
`Petition is joined with the instituted 438 Petition, because joinder
`will substantially increase costs and likely delay resolution of the
`instituted IPRs
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) states that the rules governing the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board – including those governing joinder - should be construed to secure the just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. These rules apply to both
`
`the Petitioner and the Patent Owner equally. SkyHawke, however, has adopted a
`
`serial petition strategy that has multiplied and will further multiply the costs, trouble,
`
`and expense of L&H defending its single patent. Rather than facing a single—and
`
`potentially efficient—proceeding, L&H has already been forced to have its counsel
`
`review and preliminarily respond to two IPR petitions in the 437 and 438 IPRs. It
`
`now faces the requirement of preparing two responses in those IPRs, including the
`
`need to depose SkyHawke’s expert. If joinder is granted, L&H will then need to file
`
`yet another preliminary response, conduct yet another deposition, and prepare yet
`
`another response. As described below, while this serial filing may not trouble a large
`
`entity such as SkyHawke, the substantial additional costs and procedural complexity
`
`prejudice L&H and undermine the fundamental requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`First, if SkyHawke’s motion for joinder is granted, L&H will be required to
`
`prepare a preliminary response to the 1485 IPR petition. L&H has already been
`
`required to prepare preliminary responses to two separate IPR petitions (the 437 IPR
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`and 438 IPR) and now faces the specter of having to prepare a third lengthy response.
`
`Moreover, because the full response in the 437 and 438 IPR is due prior to
`
`preliminary response deadline for the 1485 IPR, Patent Owner will be required to
`
`prepare three full responses as well as three preliminary responses. Notably,
`
`Petitioner was only willing to agree to postpone the due dates for the full responses
`
`in the 437 and 438 IPRs if L&H agreed to shorten its preliminary response deadline
`
`in the 1485 IPR to less than one month.
`
`Given the due dates for the full response in the 437 and 438 IPRs in
`
`November, L&H has incurred substantial costs, including significant travel costs,
`
`preparing for an upcoming deposition of Petitioner’s expert on October 15, 2014 for
`
`the already-instituted 437/438 Petitions. Patent Owner also expects to be required
`
`to expend considerable costs on an expert in support of the 437 and 438 response.
`
`Instituting and joining the 1485 Petition will require L&H to expend additional
`
`resources and incur additional costs to depose SkyHawke’s expert a second time as
`
`well as retain an expert in support of the response in the third IPR.1
`
`
`1 Although Petitioner agrees in its motion to allow Patent Owner to depose its
`
`expert on claims 6, 15, and 16 at the October deposition, this concession will most
`
`likely not alleviate the need to take another deposition in the 1485 IPR. This is the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`Notably, SkyHawke’s serial petition strategy is solely the result of
`
`SkyHawke’s litigation decisions—not L&H’s. In its motion, SkyHawke alleges that
`
`it filed the 1485 Petition in response to L&H’s infringement assertions against claims
`
`6 and 16 after the parties’ litigation was transferred to the Southern District of
`
`Mississippi (“S.D. Miss.”). However, SkyHawke omits mention of several critical
`
`facts. First, SkyHawke filed the 438 IPR (as well as the 437 IPR) with full
`
`knowledge of both its own products and the asserted claims. SkyHawke also knew
`
`which claims it infringed—and more importantly—the claims for which its
`
`infringement had not yet been uncovered during discovery. SkyHawke also knew
`
`that the District of Mississippi—its home district—allowed parties to add additional
`
`assertions of infringement as discovery proceeded, were additional evidence to be
`
`uncovered. However, rather than risk L&H discovering SkyHawke’s concern over
`
`claims 6, 15, and 16, which would have compelled additional focus on these claims
`
`by L&H in litigation, SkyHawke chose to withhold them from either of its first two
`
`IPRs – even though they could have been included for no additional PTO fees.
`
`
`case at least because Patent Owner will be unable to question Petitioner’s expert in
`
`view of the Board’s institution decision in October – thus most likely requiring a
`
`another deposition and all of the accompanying costs if the joinder is granted.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`The request for claim 15 is particularly telling, as L&H did not believe that it
`
`had sufficient discovery in the litigation to assert claim 15. Yet, SkyHawke’s
`
`decision to include it in the 1485 IPR shows that SkyHawke believes that it is an
`
`infringement risk. Patent Owner asserts that SkyHawke knew that all three of the
`
`claims challenged in the 1485 IPR could be raised in the litigation yet chose to
`
`withhold them from the two timely IPRs. Now, with the one-year deadline past,
`
`SkyHawke seeks to use joinder to escape the consequences of its decision to not seek
`
`review of claims 6, 15, and 16. However, the 1485 IPR will result in considerable
`
`additional costs to the Patent Owner—costs which, despite the general statements
`
`about cooperation made in Petitioner’s motion, Petitioner will have needlessly
`
`forced Patent Owner to bear if the 1485 IPR is joined.
`
`SkyHawke also alleges that there will be no prejudice to L&H from joining
`
`the proceedings because L&H is already defending its patent against the same
`
`ground and arguments in the 437/438 Petitions as set forth in the 1485 Petition. See
`
`SkyHawke’s Motion, Page 7. This assertion wholly ignores the fact that claims 6,
`
`15, and 16 are separately issued claims, using some different claim terms which must
`
`be separately considered and differentiated from the cited prior art. The 1485
`
`Petition is over 40 pages long and took Petitioner almost three weeks to prepare after
`
`the 437 and 438 IPRs were instituted—undermining Petitioner’s assertion that the
`
`1485 patent is essentially the same as the previous two petitions.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`Moreover, joinder will likely not secure a speedy resolution to the proceedings
`
`without disadvantaging L&H. It is likely that joinder will force the Board to modify
`
`the current inter partes review schedule to accommodate the 1485 Petition.
`
`Rescheduling the Board’s review will likely either (1) delay determination of the
`
`patentability of the ’566 patent, thus precluding a speedy resolution; or (2) require
`
`that the 1485 Petition proceed at an accelerated pace, thus disadvantaging L&H in
`
`defending those claims. The 437 and 438 IPRs are currently scheduled for hearing
`
`in April 2015. The preliminary response date for the 1485 IPR (if joined) would not
`
`occur until December 26, 2014 with an institution decision not due until late March
`
`2015. Even if the Board reaches accelerated institution decision, it is unlikely that
`
`the April hearing date could be maintained without significantly shortening the
`
`periods for responses, depositions, and motions – which prejudices Patent Owner.
`
`B.
`
`SkyHawke will not suffer undue prejudice if joinder is denied,
`because SkyHawke had sufficient knowledge, information, and
`resources at the outset of these proceedings to raise validity
`challenges against all claims of the ’566 patent in the 437/438
`Petitions.
`
`Any prejudice to SkyHawke will be of its own making, and, thus, not “undue.”
`
`First, as SkyHawke concedes in its motion, it purposefully waited almost the entire
`
`allowed statutory period before seeking the first IPRs (over eleven months from the
`
`filing of the district court complaint against it). Had SkyHawke been diligent in
`
`seeking an IPR, the parties might not even be in this situation.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`Second, SkyHawke again waited almost the entire allowed period before
`
`filing the 1485 IPR. If that filing was truly as similar to the 437 and 438 IPRs as
`
`Skyhawke claims, it should not have taken three weeks to file. SkyHawke chose to
`
`file when it did, though.
`
`Third, as described above, SkyHawke has no excuse for failing to raise
`
`validity challenges against claims 6, 15, and 16 before this late stage in the
`
`proceedings. First, SkyHawke had sufficient pages left in the 437 Petition to assert
`
`challenges against claims 6, 15, and 16 of the ’566 patent. See generally,
`
`SkyHawke’s 437 Petition; see also 37 C.F.R §42.24(a). Moreover, the 16 currently-
`
`challenged claims could have been challenged within the claim limits of a single
`
`petition. 37 C.F.R. § 15(a)(3). In fact, validity challenges against all claims to the
`
`’566 patent would have fallen well within the 20 claims per petition threshold. See
`
`id. Thus, any prejudice is of SkyHawke’s own making, because SkyHawke had
`
`ample opportunity to assert validity challenges against claims 6, 15, and 16 before
`
`the statutory time limit for doing so had expired.
`
`In addition, SkyHawke alleges that if the 1485 Petition is not joined with the
`
`instituted 438 Petition, 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 SkyHawke’s Motion,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`Page 9. Whether SkyHawke will face a higher burden of proof before the district
`
`court, as opposed to the lower burden in inter partes review proceedings, is
`
`immaterial to the appropriateness of joinder in this instance. The Board has stated
`
`that the primary interest in conducting its procedures “pertains to the just, speedy,
`
`and inexpensive resolution of proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`
`and not to the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the parties' disputes
`
`generally.” See ZTE Corp. and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00454 (September 25, 2013), Paper 12 at 7. SkyHawke’s assertion—that
`
`the evidentiary standard applied in district court can somehow be used to support a
`
`claim of undue prejudice against them during inter partes review proceedings, and
`
`that such prejudice can only be cured by joinder—is misplaced.
`
`Certainly, SkyHawke had sufficient resources and information available to
`
`assert its challenges to the validity of at least all of the now-challenged claims to the
`
`’566 patent in the 437/438 Petitions, if not all of the claims to the patent. SkyHawke
`
`will not suffer undue prejudice is joinder is denied, whereas L&H will suffer undue
`
`prejudice if joinder is granted. Thus, the Board, in weighing costs and benefits,
`
`should deny SkyHawke’s motion for joinder.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`
`C. The Board should deny joinder as a matter of public policy,
`because granting joinder in this instance may encourage future
`Petitioners to withhold claim validity challenges opportunistically.
`
`The Board should deny joinder as a matter of public policy and take a position
`
`that advocates the filing of procedurally efficient and concise petitions in a timely
`
`fashion. The Board has articulated that it is particularly mindful of instances where
`
`permitting joinder may encourage a “possible infinite string of follow-on IPR
`
`petitions” as well as filing additional “petitions and motions for joinder with
`
`complete disregard for the promulgated time periods for doing so.” See Sony Corp.
`
`and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00495
`
`(September 16, 2013), Paper 13 at 7. Granting joinder in this instance will encourage
`
`future Petitioners to withhold claim validity challenges opportunistically, only to
`
`potentially raise them in a procedurally disruptive manner.
`
`As described above, SkyHawke knew or had reason to know that it had
`
`infringed claims 6, 15, and 16 when it filed the 437/438 Petition. Even so,
`
`SkyHawke now seeks to assert validity challenges to these claims (via the 1485
`
`Petition) in complete disregard for the promulgated time period for doing so.
`
`Furthermore, SkyHawke concedes that no new prior art or grounds for patentability
`
`for validity challenges against claims 6, 15, and 16. See SkyHawke’s Motion, Page
`
`3. However, L&H has neither identified claim 15 as infringed, nor taken any action
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`to bring claim 15 to SkyHawke’s attention. This further establishes that SkyHawke
`
`consciously chose not to challenge all of the claims it knew it had infringed.
`
`The facts indicate that SkyHawke strategically withheld validity challenges
`
`from the 437/438 Petitions only to raise them at a time that was opportunistic for
`
`SkyHawke, yet procedurally
`
`inefficient for
`
`these proceedings and L&H.
`
`SkyHawke’s 1485 Petition and motion for joinder do not conform to the Board’s
`
`mandate to conduct proceedings in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner.
`
`Therefore, joinder should be denied.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`The Petitioner has the burden to show that joinder is appropriate, and as
`
`described above, it has not done so. Therefore, the Board should deny this motion
`
`for joinder of the 438 and 1485 IPRs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 14, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /David M. Hoffman/
`
` David M. Hoffman
`Reg. No. 54,174
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: (512) 226-8154
`F: (512) 320-8935
`Email: IPR30912-0003IP3@fr.com
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`L&H Concepts, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01485
`Attorney Docket No: 30912-0003IP3
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies that
`
`on October 14, 2014, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s Response
`
`to Motion for Joinder was provided via email to the Petitioner by serving the
`
`correspondence email address of record as follows:
`
`Thomas J. Fisher
`Oblon Spivak
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`E-mail: CPDocketFisher@oblon.com
` CPDocketMcKeown@oblon.com
` CPDocketRicciuti@oblon.com
` CPDocketEnglehart@oblon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jessica K. Detko/
`
`Jessica K. Detko
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 337-2516
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`