`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (jkimble@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy P.C.
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`Patent 7,384,177
`
`Patent Owner Innovative Display Technologies (“IDT” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`hereby files this opposition to the Motion for Joinder (“Motion,” Paper No. 5) filed
`
`by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S.
`
`International
`
`(“Petitioners”). Patent Owner hereby requests that the Board deny Petitioners’
`
`Motion.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1. IDT’s patent portfolio is currently subject to 20 IPRs:
`
`a. IPR2014-01092 (U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974);
`
`b. IPR2014-01094 (U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660);
`
`c. IPR2014-01095 (U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816);
`
`d. IPR2014-01096 (U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370);
`
`e. IPR2014-01097 (U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194);
`
`f. IPR2014-01357 (U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547);
`
`g. IPR2014-01359 (U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196);
`
`h. IPR2014-01362 (U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177);
`
`i. IPR2015-00359 (U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177);
`
`j. IPR2015-00361 (U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547);
`
`k. IPR2015-00363 (U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660);
`
`l. IPR2014-00366 (U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816);
`
`m. IPR2015-00368 (U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974);
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`Patent 7,384,177
`n. IPR2015-00487 (U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660);
`
`o. IPR2015-00489 (U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177);
`
`p. IPR2015-00492 (U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196);
`
`q. IPR2015-00493 (U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370);
`
`r. IPR2015-00495 (U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660);
`
`s. IPR2014-00496 (U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816); and
`
`t. IPR2015-00497 (U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974).
`
`2.
`
`As seen above, many of those IPRs cover overlapping patents. In fact,
`
`the majority of those overlapping IPRs purport to advance identical grounds, the
`
`only difference being that different entities filed them. That is the case for the three
`
`IPRs concerning the patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent 7,384,177 (the “’177 patent”).
`
`Those three IPRs are IPR2014-01362; IPR2015-00359 (the instant IPR); and
`
`IPR2015-00489. Each of those three IPRs purports to advance identical grounds of
`
`invalidity. See Motion at 6 (“Petitioners’ arguments regarding the asserted
`
`references are identical to the arguments LG raised in the LG IPR”); see also
`
`IPR2015-00489, Paper 3 at 6 (stating the same).
`
`3.
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. filed IPR2014-01362 (the “first IPR”) against the
`
`’177 patent on August 22, 2014.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner filed IPR2015-00359 (the instant IPR) against the ’177 patent
`
`on December 4, 2014, seeking to join the first IPR.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`Patent 7,384,177
`5.
`LG Electronics, Inc. filed IPR2015-00489 against the ’177 patent on
`
`December 29, 2014, also seeking to join the first IPR.
`
`6.
`
`The Board has yet to reach a decision on the institution on the first IPR.
`
`II. AUTHORITY
`
`The Board has the discretion to join an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315. If joinder is ordered, the Board has discretion to adjust the time period for
`
`issuing a final determination in an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(c). The Board determines 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. IPR2014-00702, Decision, July 24,
`
`2014, Paper 12 at 3 (citing 157 CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement
`
`of Sen. Kyl)). When exercising its discretion to join IPR proceedings, the Board is
`
`mindful that patent trial regulations, including the rules for joinder, must be
`
`construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.
`
`Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)).
`
`The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the
`
`requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). To determine whether to grant a
`
`motion for joinder, the Board considers many factors, including, (1) time and cost
`
`considerations, including the impact joinder would have on the trial schedule; and
`
`(2) how briefing and discovery may be simplified. IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at 3.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`Patent 7,384,177
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Petitioner’s Motion states that, “[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.” Motion at 5-6. The Motion does not adequately show
`
`that requirements (1), (3), and (4) support joinder, and thus the Motion should be
`
`denied.
`
`A. Statutorily, This IPR Cannot Be Joined to the First IPR.
`
`The Board cannot join one IPR to another unless the first IPR is instituted. See
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 (“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 …”) (emphasis added). Because the Board
`
`has yet to institute the first IPR, this Motion cannot be granted.
`
`
`
`B. In the Event that the First IPR is Instituted, the Motion to Join this IPR
`should be Denied.
`
`Patent Owner does not anticipate that the first IPR will be instituted, but, if it
`
`is, the PTAB should nonetheless deny the Motion. However, Petitioner is open to
`
`the possibility of joinder if it does not affect the schedule in the first IPR or any IPRs
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`Patent 7,384,177
`set with concurrent schedules the first IPR. Otherwise, the PTAB should deny the
`
`Motion for the reasons set forth below.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion states that, “[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.” Motion at 5-6. The Motion does not adequately show
`
`that requirements (1), (3), and (4) support joinder, and thus the Motion should be
`
`denied.
`
`C. Petitioners’ Motion Does not Set Forth Any Independent Reasons Why
`Joinder is Appropriate.
`
`To meet the first requirement of a motion for joinder, Petitioners simply argue
`
`the second and third requirements. First, Petitioners argue that this IPR “does not
`
`raise any new grounds of unpatentability over what has been asserted in the LG IPR”
`
`and that “Petitioners’ arguments regarding the asserted references are identical to
`
`the arguments LG raised in the LG IPR.” Motion at 6. But those reasons alone are
`
`not enough for joinder. See IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at 4 (“As an initial matter, we
`
`are not persuaded by Unified’s argument that, if there are two proceedings with
`
`nearly identical petitions, the legislative history provides that joinder should be
`
`granted ‘as a matter of right.’ Mot. 6; Reply 1. As we explained above, Section
`
`315(c) clearly states that we have discretion to join a party. Unified fails to recognize
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`Patent 7,384,177
`that joinder is not automatic, particularly given the need to complete proceedings in
`
`a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner.”).
`
`Second, Petitioners argue that joinder is appropriate because the “LG IPR has
`
`not yet been instituted, and therefore, no scheduling order has been entered, yet.”
`
`Motion at 6. Nevertheless, as discussed in the next section, joinder here would
`
`improperly delay the scheduling of the first IPR.
`
`D. Joinder Would Improperly Delay the Trial Schedule in the First IPR.
`
`Delaying the schedule of the first IPR to accommodate joinder would inhibit
`
`the Board’s mandate “to complete proceedings in a just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`manner.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As cited above, the Board’s interest in completing
`
`proceedings in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner supersedes its interest in
`
`joining identical IPRs. See IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at 4 (“we are not persuaded by
`
`Unified’s argument that, if there are two proceedings with nearly identical petitions,
`
`the legislative history provides that joinder should be granted ‘as a matter of right.’…
`
`Unified fails to recognize that joinder is not automatic, particularly given the need
`
`to complete proceedings in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner.”).
`
`Furthermore, it is likely that if instituted the first IPR will have a concurrent
`
`and identical schedule set with IPR2014-01357 and IPR2014-01359, which were
`
`filed within one day of each other and which involve related patents to the patent-at-
`
`issue. Joinder here would likely affect the schedule of IPR2014-01357 and IPR2014-
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`Patent 7,384,177
`01359, delaying those IPRs too. Thus, joining this proceeding with the first IPR
`
`would also affect the Board’s ability to complete IPR2014-01357 and IPR2014-
`
`01359 in a timely manner. The potential impact of joinder on the schedule of
`
`IPR2014-01357 and IPR2014-01359 weighs against joinder. See IPR2014-00702,
`
`Paper 12 at 7 (“IPR2014-00057 is not just a single case with no other pending related
`
`inter partes reviews. Instead, IPR2014-00057 is one of five related inter partes
`
`reviews between Rackspace and PersonalWeb in which a trial has been instituted.
`
`The discovery process and trial schedule for IPR2014-00057 has been coordinated
`
`and synchronized with each of the related inter partes reviews … Unified, however,
`
`does not address adequately the impact of joinder on the other four related inter
`
`partes reviews, much less present a good cause showing why the pendency for those
`
`proceedings should be extended. As such, joining this proceeding with IPR2014-
`
`00057 most likely would affect our ability to complete all five proceedings in a
`
`timely manner and, as a result, weighs in favor of denying Unified’s Motion for
`
`Joinder.”).
`
`E. Patent Owner Will Likely Seek Additional Discovery in this IPR,
`which Weighs Further against Joinder.
`
`Patent Owner will seek additional discovery to determine if LG Display Co.
`
`Ltd. (“LG”) was controlling or funding the filing of this IPR, and thus whether this
`
`IPR fails to name real parties-in-interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(2) or should
`
`be terminated under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d). Patent Owner is aware that LG supplies
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`Patent 7,384,177
`Petitioners with the very LCDs that are the subject of Patent Owner’s lawsuit
`
`asserting the ’177 patent against Petitioner: Innovative Display Technologies LLC v.
`
`Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. et al., 2:14-cv- 00535-JRG (E.D. Tex., filed
`
`June 24, 2014). Furthermore, LG is the Petitioner in the first IPR, which Petitioners
`
`allege is identical to the present IPR. Under these facts, it is likely that LG is an
`
`unnamed real party-in-interest to this IPR. The potential for the additional discovery
`
`sought to prove LG’s involvement in this IPR is beyond that already before the
`
`PTAB in IPR2014-01362, and thus weighs against joinder. See IPR2014-00702,
`
`Paper 12 at 5-6 (“Based on those statements, it is not unreasonable for PersonalWeb
`
`to seek authorization for additional discovery in order to determine what companies,
`
`if any, fund and control Unified. This potential for additional discovery presents a
`
`new substantive issue beyond what is already before us in IPR2014-00057 and, as a
`
`result, weighs in favor of denying Unified’s Motion for Joinder.”).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The first IPR has not been instituted and thus the instant IPR cannot be joined
`
`to it. Moreover, Petitioners have not met their burden for joinder. To support their
`
`Motion for joinder, Petitioners simply argue that the IPRs are identical and that the
`
`schedule in the first IPR was not entered yet. Those are not sufficient reasons for
`
`joinder if joinder would delay the schedule of the first IPR and possibly the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00359
`Patent 7,384,177
`schedules of other IPRs. Furthermore, additional discovery would likely be sought
`
`in this IPR that is not sought in the first IPR.
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Dated: January 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registration No. 58,591
`
`
`
`
`
`Bragalone Conroy P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`
`
`
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`
`
`
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that document has been served via electronic
`
`mail on January 23, 2015, to Petitioners at following email addresses pursuant to
`
`their consent
`
`in
`
`its Petition at p. 4:
`
` sweingaertner@kslaw.com and
`
`nmoffitt@kslaw.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registration No. 58,591
`
`
`
`
`
`Bragalone Conroy P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`