`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`Hyundai Motor Company
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`American Vehicular Sciences LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 7,650,210
`Filing Date: August 14, 2006
`Issue Date: January 19, 2010
`Title: REMOTE VEHICLE DIAGNOSTIC MANAGEMENT
`_________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai Motor Company (“Hyundai”) submits at the same time as this
`
`motion a Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 13, 15, 16, 18, and
`
`19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,210 (“the ‘210 patent”) (“Petition”). Hyundai
`
`respectfully requests that its Petition be granted and that the proceedings be joined
`
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b) with the pending inter partes review initiated by Honda Motor Co.
`
`(“Honda”) concerning the same patent: American Honda Motor Co. Inc., v.
`
`American Vehicular Sciences, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00633 (the “Honda IPR”).
`
`The Board recently granted a similar motion filed by Hyundai requesting
`
`joinder with another IPR initiated by Honda involving a related American
`
`Vehicular Sciences, LLC (“AVS”) patent. Hyundai Motor Co. v. Am. Veh. Scis.,
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01543, Paper No. 11 at 3-6 (Oct. 24, 2014). The present
`
`motion presents the same set of circumstances as Hyundai’s earlier motion that
`
`was granted by the Board, namely: (i) each ground proposed by Hyundai is
`
`identical to a ground that has been instituted for trial in the Honda IPR; (ii)
`
`Hyundai did not even propose all of the grounds that have been instituted for trial
`
`in the Honda IPR; (iii) Hyundai’s arguments are identical to those made by Honda
`
`in the Honda IPR; (iv) with respect to the grounds it has proposed, Hyundai relies
`
`on the same declaration testimony of Mr. Christopher Wilson, albeit submitted in a
`
`separate declaration, as was relied on by Honda for those same grounds; (v)
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai agrees to have consolidated filings with Honda, and to be limited to
`
`separate filings, if any, of no more than seven pages directed only to points of
`
`disagreement with Honda with the understanding that it will not be permitted any
`
`separate arguments in furtherance of those advanced in Honda’s consolidated
`
`filings; and (vi) because Hyundai does not expect that it will have any points of
`
`disagreement with Honda, it does not believe that it is likely to make any separate
`
`filings.
`
`Given these circumstances, joinder is appropriate here for the same reasons
`
`found by the Board in its earlier decision in Case No. IPR2014-01543.
`
`Specifically, the Board found that the impact of joinder on the Honda IPR would
`
`be minimal, joinder would enhance efficiency, avoid duplication of efforts, and
`
`reduce the potential of inconsistency among proceedings.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`AVS is the owner of the ’210 patent. On October 15, 2012, AVS sued
`
`Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, and Hyundai Motor
`
`Manufacturing Alabama, LLC (collectively “Hyundai”) in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas for allegedly infringing the ’210 patent (the “Underlying Litigation”). On
`
`April 15, 2014, Honda filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’210 patent.
`
`The Board instituted trial in the Honda IPR on September 29, 2014 (Honda IPR,
`
`Paper No. 8, at 27-28) on claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19. The Board set
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`December 1, 2014, as the date for AVS’s response to the petition (Honda IPR,
`
`Paper No. 9, at 6). Concurrently with this Motion, Hyundai is filing a Petition for
`
`inter partes review of the ’210 patent.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`Hyundai’s Petition and this motion for joinder are timely under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), as they are being submitted within one month of
`
`September 29, 2014, the date that the Honda IPR was instituted. A party may file a
`
`motion requesting joinder “no later than one month after the institution date of any
`
`inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The
`
`one-year time limitation prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not apply when a
`
`party moves to join another IPR proceedings. See 35 U.S.C. § 315 (b) (“The time
`
`limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder
`
`under subsection (c).”); see also Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper No. 17, at 5 (“The one-year bar, therefore, does not apply to Dell
`
`because it filed a motion for joinder with its Petition”).
`
`A.
`
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete the review
`in a timely manner
`
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and associated rule 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(c) provide that inter partes review proceedings should be completed and
`
`the Board’s final decision issued within one year of institution of the review. The
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`same provisions provide the Board with flexibility to extend the one-year period by
`
`up to six months for good cause, or in the case of joinder.
`
`In this case, joinder should not affect the Board’s ability to issue its final
`
`determination within one year because Petitioner does not raise any issues that are
`
`not already before the Board. Hyundai’s Petition is based on the same grounds and
`
`same combinations of prior art as those on which trial has been instituted in the
`
`Honda IPR. Indeed, Hyundai has not raised one of the grounds on which a trial was
`
`instituted (anticipation of Claims 1, 8, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Fry,
`
`discussed at pages 24-26 of Paper 8 in the Honda IPR), thereby further minimizing
`
`any impact of Hyundai’s joinder. Hyundai’s arguments regarding the asserted
`
`prior art references are identical to those made by Honda in its petition (Compare
`
`Pet. 8-23, with IPR2013-00633, Paper 1 at 9-24, 36-40). Further, Hyundai has
`
`retained and submitted a declaration from the same declarant as Honda,
`
`Christopher Wilson, with the only difference being that Hyundai has removed
`
`testimony regarding prior art references on which a trial was not instituted in the
`
`Honda IPR and testimony relating to the Fry prior art reference. Compare Ex.
`
`1008, with IPR2014-00633, Ex. 1011. Accordingly, AVS should not need any
`
`additional discovery of Mr. Wilson beyond what it has already asked for in the
`
`Honda IPR. As noted above, the Board recently granted Hyundai’s request to join
`
`an IPR initiated by Honda involving a different AVS patent under the same
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`circumstances. Hyundai Motor Co. v. Am. Veh. Scis., Case No. IPR2014-01543,
`
`Paper No. 11 at 3-6 (Oct. 24, 2014).
`
`The first deadline in Honda’s IPR is the due date for AVS’s response to
`
`Honda’s petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120) and any motion to amend the patent (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.121), which is currently set for December 1, 2014, more than one
`
`month after the date of this motion. Because Hyundai’s IPR petition does not raise
`
`any new issues, AVS’s response would not require any analysis beyond what AVS
`
`is already required to undertake to respond to Honda’s petition.
`
`Hyundai respectfully submits that briefing and discovery in the joined
`
`proceeding can be simplified to minimize any impact to the schedule or the volume
`
`of materials to be submitted to the Board. Hyundai is willing to adopt the same
`
`procedures ordered by the Board in IPR2014-01543 and IPR2014-00634, limiting
`
`Hyundai to separate filings, if any, of no more than seven pages directed only to
`
`points of disagreement with Honda, with the understanding that Hyundai will not
`
`be permitted any separate arguments in furtherance of those advance in Honda’s
`
`consolidated filings. Hyundai Motor Corp. v. Am. Veh. Scis., IPR2014-01543,
`
`Paper No. 11, at 4-6 (Oct. 24, 2014). See also, Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17,
`
`at 8 (adopting similar procedures); Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00256, Paper No. 10, at 9 (same). Given that Hyundai and Honda will be
`
`addressing the same prior art and the same bases for rejection using the same
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`expert, Hyundai does not envision any differences in position with Honda, and
`
`does not believe that it is likely to make any separate filings.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder would enhance efficiency by consolidating issues, avoiding
`duplicate efforts, and preventing inconsistencies among the
`pending proceedings
`
`The validity of the ’210 patent is squarely at issue in, as described above,
`
`both the Underlying Litigation and the Honda IPR, and a final written decision in
`
`the consolidated inter partes review has the potential to resolve the Underlying
`
`Litigation with respect to the ’210 patent. Allowing a consolidated inter partes
`
`review would also avoid potential inconsistency and avoid prejudice to Hyundai in
`
`the event that Honda and AVS reach a resolution of their disputes during the
`
`pendency of the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) provides that an inter partes review “shall
`
`be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner
`
`and the patent owner” unless the Board has already reached its decision on the
`
`merits. If no petitioner remains after settlement, “the Office may terminate the
`
`review.” Id. Thus, if AVS and Honda were to reach a settlement, the Honda IPR
`
`could terminate without proceeding to a final written decision.
`
`Indeed, if the Board terminated the Honda IPR, Hyundai and Kia would be
`
`forced to start over before the District Court with the exact same arguments that
`
`Honda has already shown it is reasonably likely to prevail on. (See Honda IPR,
`
`Paper No. 8.) The potential for inconsistency would be also heightened because
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Hyundai and Kia would face a higher burden before the District Court of proving
`
`the invalidity of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 by clear and convincing
`
`evidence, as opposed to the lower burden here of a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Having to overcome a higher burden to get the same result
`
`is prejudicial to Hyundai, especially since Hyundai has complied with the statute
`
`and regulations in filing its Petition and the instant motion.
`
`Additionally, if the Board permits Hyundai to join the Honda IPR, and AVS
`
`is correct in its belief that claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 of the ’210
`
`patent are patentable, Hyundai will be estopped from further challenging the
`
`validity of the patent in the Underlying Litigation, avoiding duplication of efforts
`
`at least as to Hyundai. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). Accordingly, to avoid duplicate
`
`efforts, the possibility of inconsistencies, and prejudice to Hyundai, joinder is
`
`appropriate.
`
`Joinder will not prejudice AVS or Honda
`
`C.
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice AVS or Honda. Hyundai raises no
`
`issues that are not already before the Board, such that joinder would not affect the
`
`timing of the Honda IPR or the content of AVS’s Patent Owner response due on
`
`December 1, 2014. Hyundai also believes any additional costs to AVS and Honda
`
`associated with its participation in the Honda IPR will be minor, and certainly not
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`so great as to justify the potential prejudice to Hyundai if the Honda IPR were to
`
`be otherwise terminated before a final written decision by the Board.
`
`Finally, even if the Board were to determine that joinder will require a minor
`
`extension of the schedule, such an extension is permitted by law and is not a reason
`
`for denying joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,210 be granted and that the
`
`proceedings be joined with Honda Motor Co. v. American Vehicular Sciences
`
`LLC, Case IPR2014-00633.
`
`The undersigned attorney may be reached by telephone at (202) 408-4365.
`
`Although Petitioner believes that no fee is required for this Motion, the
`
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees which may be
`
`required for this Motion to Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`Dated: October 28, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Ed Naidich /
`Ed Naidich
`Registration No. 43,826
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and
`Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Ave. NW
`Washington DC 20001
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Motion for
`
`Joinder was served on October 28, 2014, upon the following parties via UPS
`
`overnight delivery:
`
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`
`
`Courtesy Copies to:
`
`
`Brian Roffe, Esq.
`8170 McCormick Boulevard, Suite 223
`Skokie, IL 60076-2914
`
`Demetrios Anaipakos
`Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, P.C.
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460
`Houston, TX 77010
`
`
`
`/ Ed Naidich /
`Ed Naidich
`Registration No. 43,826
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and
`Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Ave. NW
`Washington DC 20001
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 28, 2014
`
`
`
`
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
