`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 39
`Entered: November 24, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP. and VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK
`SERVICES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01406
`Patent 6,108,704 C1
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`Verizon Services Corp. and Verizon Business Network Services Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review
`
`of claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01406
`Patent 6,108,704 C1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 C1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’704 patent”). Paper 1
`
`(“Pet.”). With the Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3,
`
`“Mot.”), seeking to join this case with LG Elecs., Inc. v Straight Path IP
`
`Grp., Inc., IPR2015-00209, filed by LG Electronics, Inc., Toshiba Corp.,
`
`VIZIO, Inc., and Hulu, LLC (collectively, “LG”). Patent Owner does not
`
`oppose the Motion for Joinder. Paper 7, 2. In a separate decision, entered
`
`today, we institute an inter partes review as to the same claims on the same
`
`grounds of unpatentability for which we instituted trial in LG Elecs., Inc. v
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc., IPR2015-00209. For the reasons that follow,
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is granted.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner filed its Petition and Motion for Joinder on June 15, 2015,
`
`within one month after the institution date of IPR2015-00209. Petitioner’s
`
`Motion for Joinder includes a proposed order defining the parameters of
`
`joinder. See Mot. 8–9.
`
`The Petition in this case asserts that claim 1 of the ’704 patent is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WINS1 and
`
`NetBIOS2 and claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of the ’704
`
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over WINS,
`
`NetBIOS, and Pinard. 3 Pet. 34–60. These are the same claims and the same
`
`grounds for which we instituted trial in IPR2015-00209. LG Elecs., Inc. v.
`
`
`
`1 MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT SERVER VERSION 3.5, TCP/IP USER
`GUIDE, © 1994 Microsoft Corporation (Ex. 1003, “WINS”).
`2, TECHNICAL STANDARD PROTOCOLS FOR X/OPEN PC
`INTERWORKING: SMB, VERSION 2, THE OPEN GROUP © September
`1992, X/Open Company Limited (Ex. 1004, “NetBIOS”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,533,110, issued July 2, 1996 (Ex. 1020, “Pinard”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01406
`Patent 6,108,704 C1
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc., Case IPR2015-00209, slip op. at 9–23 (PTAB
`
`May 15, 2015) (Paper 20).
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29 (2011),
`
`permits joinder of like review proceedings. Thus, an inter partes review
`
`may be joined with another inter partes review. The statutory provision
`
`governing joinder of inter partes review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`
`which provides:
`
`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.
`
`As the movant, Petitioner bears the burden to show that joinder is
`
`appropriate. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In its Motion for Joinder, Petitioner
`
`contends that joinder is appropriate because “it is the most expedient way to
`
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the related
`
`proceedings.” Mot. 4. Petitioner (1) represents that IPR2015-01406 is
`
`identical to IPR2015-00209 in all substantive aspects, including identical
`
`grounds, analysis, exhibits, and relies upon the same expert Declaration;
`
`(2) agrees to (a) incorporate its filings with LG, (b) not advance any
`
`arguments separate from those advanced by LG, and (c) consolidate
`
`discovery; (3) represents that joinder will not have any impact on the
`
`IPR2015-00209 schedule; and (4) asserts that there will be no prejudice to
`
`Patent Owner. Id. at 4–8.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01406
`Patent 6,108,704 C1
`
`
`Acting on behalf of the Director, we have discretion to join
`
`proceedings. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). In exercising our discretion, we consider
`
`the impact of both substantive issues and procedural matters on the
`
`proceedings.
`
`The substantive issues in IPR2015-00209 will not be affected by
`
`joinder because Petitioner asserts the same grounds of unpatentability, for
`
`which trial was instituted in IPR2014-00209, presents the same arguments as
`
`those advanced by LG, and, therefore, our analysis would similarly institute
`
`review of the claims for the same ground for which trial was instituted in
`
`IPR2015-00209. Compare Pet. 34–60 with LG Elecs., Inc. v. Straight Path
`
`IP Grp., Inc., Case IPR2015-00209, Paper 1, 34–60. Further, Petitioner
`
`submits the same Declaration of Dr. Bruce M. Maggs that Samsung
`
`submitted in support of its Petition. See Ex. 1002; LG Elecs., Inc. v. Straight
`
`Path IP Grp., Inc., Case IPR2015-00209, Ex. 1002. Thus, Petitioner asserts
`
`that the Petition in this proceeding raises no new issues beyond those already
`
`before the Board in IPR2015-00209.
`
`Regarding procedural matters, Petitioner argues that joinder would not
`
`require any change to the trial schedule in IPR2015-00209. Mot. 6–7.
`
`Petitioner further argues that joinder would “permit Petitioners to maintain
`
`their ongoing interests in the Board’s review of the ʼ704 patent” in the event
`
`Samsung withdraws from the proceeding. Id. at 8.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Under the circumstances, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated
`
`that joinder will not unduly complicate or delay IPR2015-00209, and
`
`therefore joinder is appropriate. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is granted.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01406
`Patent 6,108,704 C1
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDER
`
` ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with IPR2015-00209
`
`is granted;
`
` FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is joined with IPR2015-
`
`00209;
`
` FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds on which a trial was
`
`instituted in IPR2015-00209 are unchanged and that no other grounds raised
`
`in the IPR2015-01406 Petition are authorized for inter partes review;
`
` FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order for IPR2015-00209
`
`(Paper 21) shall govern the joined proceedings;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that throughout the proceeding, LG and
`
`Petitioner will file papers as consolidated filings, except for motions that do
`
`not involve the other party, in accordance with the Board’s established rules
`
`regarding page limits. So long as they both continue to participate in the
`
`merged proceeding, LG and Petitioner will identify each such filing as a
`
`Consolidated Filing and will be responsible for completing all consolidated
`
`filings;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will refrain from requesting or
`
`reserving any additional depositions or deposition time;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that LG and Petitioner will jointly conduct the
`
`cross-examination of any given witness produced by Patent Owner and the
`
`redirect of any given witness produced by LG or Petitioner within the
`
`timeframe normally allotted by the rules for one party. LG and Petitioner
`
`will not receive any separate cross-examination or redirect time;
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01406
`Patent 6,108,704 C1
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner will conduct any cross-
`
`examination of any given witness jointly produced by LG or Petitioner and
`
`the redirect of any given witness produced by Patent Owner within the time
`
`frame normally allotted by the rules for one cross-examination or redirect
`
`examination;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that LG and Petitioner agree not to request
`
`additional oral hearing time solely on the basis of the participation of
`
`multiple petitioners;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will assume a second-chair role
`
`as long as LG remains in the proceeding. Should LG cease to be in the
`
`proceeding, Petitioner will consolidate its activities with the remaining
`
`petitioners for the remainder of the proceeding consistent with the applicable
`
`rules and the direction of the Board;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2015-01406 is instituted, joined, and
`
`terminated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the joined
`
`proceeding shall be made in IPR2015-00209;
`
` FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2015-00209 shall
`
`be changed to reflect the joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the
`
`attached example;
`
` FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`
`the file of IPR2015-00209.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01406
`Patent 6,108,704 C1
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Rajeev Gupta
`Darren M. Jiron
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`raj.gupta@finnegan.comdarren.jiron@finnegan.com
`
`Clint Conner
`conner.clint@dorsey.com
`
`Kevin O’Brien
`Kevin.O'Brien@bakermckenzie.com
`
`Leo Lam
`llam@kvn.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`William Meunier
`Michael Renaud
`Michael Newman
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`WAMeunier@mintz.com
`mtrenaud@mintz.com
`mcnewman@mintz.com
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 39
`Entered: November 24, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., TOSHIBA CORP.,
`VIZIO, INC., HULU, LLC,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., AVAYA INC.,
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and VERIZON BUSNESS NETWORK
`SERVICES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-002091
`Patent 6,108,704 C1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01398 and IPR2015-01406 have been joined with this
`proceeding.