`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: March 6, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC. and E-WATCH CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00543
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`MATHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00543
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 7,643,168 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’168 patent”).
`
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Concurrently with its Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for
`
`Joinder. Paper 3 (“Mot.”). The Motion for Joinder seeks to join this
`
`proceeding with HTC Corp. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00989 (hereinafter
`
`“HTC IPR”). Mot. 1. (“Mot.”). E-Watch, Inc. and e-Watch Corporation
`
`(“Patent Owner”) indicates that it does not oppose the Motion for Joinder.
`
`Paper 9. Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response.
`
`Petitioner in the HTC IPR, HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`
`(“HTC”) filed a Notice in Response to Motion for Joinder stating HTC did
`
`not oppose joinder based on the representation from Petitioner that it would
`
`have limited participation in the HTC IPR. HTC IPR, Paper 13.
`
`For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–6, 8, 10, 11, 13–18, 21–29, and 31 of the ’168 patent and grant
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`The Petition asserts the same grounds as those on which we instituted
`
`review in the HTC IPR. Pet. 1; Mot. 5–6. On December 9, 2014, we
`
`instituted an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of: (1) claims 1–6, 8,
`
`10, 11, 13–15, 21–29 and 31 as obvious over Morita1 and Sarbadhikari2; (2)
`
`claims 16–18 as obvious over Morita, Sarbadhikari and Longginou3; (3)
`
`
`1 JP H06-133081, published May 13, 1994 (Ex. 1002, “Morita”).
`2 US 5,477,264, issued Dec. 19,1995 (Ex. 1003, “Sarbadhikari”).
`3 WO 95/23485, published Aug. 31, 1995 (Ex. 1004, “Longginou”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00543
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`claims 1–6, 8, 10, 11, 16–18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 29 as obvious over
`
`Wilska4 and Yamagishi-9925; and (4) claims 13–15, 23, 25, 28, and 31 as
`
`obvious over Wilska, Yamagishi-992, and McNelley6.
`
`In view of the challenges in the instant Petition and the petition in the
`
`HTC IPR, we institute an inter partes review in this proceeding on the same
`
`grounds as those on which we instituted in the HTC IPR.
`
`GRANT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`The Petition in this proceeding has been accorded a filing date of
`
`January 7, 2015, and, thus, satisfies the requirement that joinder be requested
`
`no later than one month after the institution date of the HTC IPR. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b); Paper 6 (Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition).
`
`The Petition in this proceeding sets forth the same ground and
`
`combination of prior art, the same witness declaration, and the same
`
`arguments considered by the Board in instituting trial in the HTC IPR. Mot.
`
`5–6. Per our Order dated February 4, 2015 (Paper 8), Petitioner filed a
`
`redline identifying all differences between the Petition in the instant
`
`proceeding and the Petition in the HTC IPR. Ex. 1012. Petitioner represents
`
`that the Petitions differ only in that the Petition in this case applies claim
`
`constructions adopted by the Board in the Decision on Institution (“Dec.
`
`Inst.”) in the HTC IPR. Mot. 4, n.3 (citing Ex. 1010 at 6–8). We reviewed
`
`the redlined copy of the Petition (Exhibit 1012) and confirmed that the
`
`differences between the two Petitions do not introduce new issues.
`
`
`4 GB 2289555A, published Nov. 22, 1995 (Ex. 1005, “Wilska”)
`5 EP 0 594 992 A1, published May 4, 1994 (Ex. 1006, “Yamagishi-992”).
`6 Us 5,550,754, issued Aug. 27, 1996 (Ex. 1007, “McNelley”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00543
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`
`Petitioner represents in its Motion for Joinder that it “is willing to be
`
`limited to separate filings, if any, of a reasonable number of pages (e.g.,
`
`seven pages) directed only to points of disagreement with HTC with the
`
`understanding that it will not be permitted any separate arguments in
`
`furtherance of those advanced in HTC’s consolidated filings.” Mot. 7.
`
`Petitioner represents that “no additional depositions will be needed and
`
`depositions will be completed within ordinary time limits.” Id. Petitioner
`
`represents that it will “coordinate with HTC to consolidate filings, manage
`
`questioning at depositions, manage presentations at the hearing, ensure that
`
`briefing and discovery occur within the time normally allotted, and avoid
`
`redundancies.” HTC does not oppose Samsung’s Motion for Joinder of this
`
`proceeding with the HTC IPR “based on the agreement made by Samsung to
`
`the Board during a conference call on February 3, 2015 for limited
`
`participation by Samsung in the IPR2014-00987 proceeding.” HTC IPR,
`
`Paper 13, 1.
`
`Under the circumstances, we conclude Samsung has demonstrated
`
`that joinder will not unduly complicate or delay the HTC IPR, and therefore,
`
`we grant Samsung’s Motion for Joinder to join this proceeding with the
`
`HTC IPR.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that IPR2015-00543 is instituted and joined with
`
`IPR2014-00989;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the ground on which IPR2014-00989 was
`
`instituted is unchanged, and no other grounds are instituted in the joined
`
`proceeding;
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00543
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in place for
`
`IPR2014-00989 (Paper 7) shall govern the joined proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, if Patent Owner requires a Supplemental
`
`Response to address the Petition filed in IPR2015-00543, Patent Owner
`
`must request a conference call with the Board within five days of this Order;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, throughout the joined proceeding, HTC
`
`and Samsung will file any paper, except for a motion that does not involve
`
`the other party, as a single, consolidated filing on behalf of Petitioner, and
`
`HTC will identify each such filing as a consolidated filing;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that for any consolidated filing made by HTC,
`
`Samsung may file an additional paper, not to exceed three pages, which may
`
`address only points of disagreement with HTC;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that HTC will conduct the deposition of any
`
`Patent Owner witness taken on behalf of HTC and Samsung, collectively,
`
`and Samsung may not participate in the questioning absent prior approval
`
`from the Board;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that any requests by any party for additional
`
`deposition time must be brought before the Board;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2015-00543 is terminated under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the joined proceeding are to be
`
`made in IPR2014-00989;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision will be entered
`
`into the record of IPR2014-00989; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2014-00989 shall
`
`be changed to reflect joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the
`
`attached example.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00543
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`PETITIONER
`
`Steven L. Park
`Naveen Modi
`Elizabeth Brann
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`stevenpark@paulhastings.com
` naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Robert C. Curfiss
`bob@curfiss.com
`
`
`David O. Simmons
`IVC Patent Agency
`Dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net
`
`PETITIONER IN IPR2014-00989
`
`Bing Ai
`Cheng C. Ko
`Kevin Patariu
`Babak Tehranchi
`Perkins Coie LLP
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`CKo@perkinscoie.com
`KPatariu@perkinscoie.com
`BTehranchi@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00543
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC. and E-WATCH CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-009897
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`____________
`
`
`7 Case IPR2015-00543 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`7
`
`