`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
` NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC. and NINTENDO CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BABBAGE HOLDINGS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00568
`Patent 5,561,811
`
`____________
`
`
`BABBAGE HOLDINGS, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This paper responds to the Motion for Joinder (the “Motion”) filed by
`
`Petitioners, Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo of America Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Nintendo”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder of inter partes review proceedings
`
`is 35 U.S.C. §315(c). As the movant, Nintendo bears the burden to show that
`
`joinder is appropriate. See, 37 C.F.R. §42.20(c). As will be seen, Nintendo’s
`
`motion has not established entitlement to the requested relief.
`
`Moreover, and as the Board’s website notes: “the rules governing the filing
`
`and progress of IPRs, including the rules relating to joinder, are meant to ‘secure
`
`the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding’.” See, 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.1(b) (emphasis supplied). Because the parties to the underlying proceeding,
`
`(IPR2014-00954) indeed have resolved their differences and are settling the
`
`associated district court litigation, the grant of joinder here will frustrate that
`
`express purpose.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING MATERIAL FACTS
`
`
`
`The motion identifies eleven (11) material facts. Whether the last sentence
`
`in Material Fact No. 4 (namely, that “Sony does not oppose Nintendo’s Motion for
`
`Joinder”) is true, is unknown; thus, for present purposes the fact is disputed. The
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`remaining facts asserted by Nintendo, and as stated, are true, but the listing is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`incomplete. The following additional material facts are submitted per 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.23(a):
`
`
`
`12. On February 2, 2015, Patent Owner and Defendants’ Activision
`
`Publishing, Inc. and Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. filed a stipulated motion for
`
`dismissal with prejudice in the related district court litigation. See, Exhibit 2002.
`
`13. On February 2, 2015, Patent Owner and Defendant Square Enix, Inc.
`
`filed a stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice in the related district court
`
`litigation. See, Exhibit 2003.
`
`
`
`14. On February 3, 2015, Patent Owner and Defendant Riot Games, Inc.
`
`filed a stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice in the related district court
`
`litigation. See, Exhibit 2004.
`
`
`
`15. On February 5, 2015, Patent Owner and Defendant Capcom U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. filed a stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice in the related district
`
`court litigation. See, Exhibit 2005.
`
`
`
`16. On February 6, 2015, Patent Owner and Defendant Electronic Arts,
`
`Inc. filed a stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice in the related district
`
`court litigation. See, Exhibit 2006.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`
`
`17. On February 9, 2015, Patent Owner and Defendant Bandai Namco
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Games America, Inc. filed a stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice in the
`
`related district court litigation. See, Exhibit 2007.
`
`
`
`18. Nintendo filed the Petition in IPR2015-00568 on January 14, 2015,
`
`but it did not provide the Petition to the Patent Owner’s litigation counsel until
`
`later the next day, January 15th.1 By that time, however, Patent Owner and
`
`Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC had already agreed in
`
`principle to settle the related district court litigation. Sony executed a settlement
`
`agreement on February 13, 2015, and the parties are now in the process of
`
`executing the settlement, which includes the filing of a motion for dismissal with
`
`prejudice in the related district court litigation.
`
`
`
`19. With the exception of an action against Petitioner Nintendo of
`
`America, Inc. (No. 5:14-cv-04822), and an action against Konami Digital
`
`Entertainment, Inc. (No. 13-cv-754), all of the related district court litigation is
`
`now settled. Defendant Konami has not joined either IPR2014-00954 or
`
`IPR2015-00568.
`
`
`1
`Although Nintendo sought to join IPR2014-00954, it did not provide the
`Patent Owner’s Lead Counsel (the undersigned) with either the Petition or
`the Motion at any time.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Nintendo has not met its burden to establish entitlement to relief
`
`As the movant, Nintendo bears the burden to show that joinder is
`
`appropriate. See, 37 C.F.R. §42.20(c).
`
`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) specifically address how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified. See e.g., Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, Case IPR2013-00004,
`
`slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013).
`
`Regarding points (1) and (2), Nintendo contends that its Petition here “is in
`
`all material respects the same as Ground I” in IPR2014-00954. Superficially, and
`
`at present, Nintendo’s statement is true, however, the Motion also states that
`
`“Nintendo will continue [following along with the other petitioners] unless and
`
`until the ‘954 IPR is terminated as to all other petitioners.” (See, Motion, at 2,
`
`FN1, emphasis supplied). Also, Nintendo wants the right to submit “separate
`
`filings” if its “position differs from the position of the ‘954 IPR petitioners.” (Id.,
`
`at 2). Nintendo did not identify in its Motion what this different “position” might
`
`entail, only that it might need to pursue it. As noted below, however, the ‘954 IPR
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`petitioners have now settled out of the underlying district court litigation, and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner and those petitioners intend to file a motion to terminate the ‘954
`
`IPR as soon as the litigation dismissals are finally entered by the district courts (at
`
`most, a matter of weeks). Thus, if joinder is granted, there is a real possibility
`
`Nintendo move this IPR in a new direction. The Motion is deficient because it
`
`does not explain how “Nintendo’s position” may change, or why joinder would be
`
`appropriate in such circumstances (it would not be).
`
`The third factor considers what impact (if any) joinder would have on the
`
`trial schedule for the existing review. Here, Nintendo says “joinder will not
`
`adversely impact the trial schedule in the ‘954 IPR” and that it will “adhere to all
`
`applicable deadlines set forth by the December 15, 2014 Scheduling Order.” (See,
`
`Motion, at 1-2). Once again, these statements have superficial appeal but, as
`
`noted above, Nintendo also is expressing its desire and intent to offer (or at least
`
`reserve the right to offer) different “positions” from those of the ‘954 IPR
`
`petitioners. Any such alternative filings (or theories) will have unintended
`
`consequences (or may well derail) the current trial schedule. The Motion does not
`
`attempt to reconcile these positions.
`
`Regarding the fourth factor, Nintendo says it will agree to “consolidation of
`
`all filings and will not submit any separate filings” (Motion, at 2), but – once again
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`– this offer is accompanied by a caveat that it may also need additional briefing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(including “if the ‘954 IPR is terminated as to all other petitioners” – which it will
`
`be!). Thus, the Motion does not explain how “briefing and discovery may be
`
`simplified.” Rather, Nintendo in effect urges that nothing will change, but this
`
`position is unfounded; indeed, it is premised on the underlying ‘954 IPR
`
`continuing with the petitioners intact.
`
`Finally, Nintendo’s Motion states it “is in communication with counsel for
`
`the ‘954 IPR petitioners and will cooperate on all briefing and discovery.” (See,
`
`Motion, at 8). This promise, however, rings “hollow,” because the Motion does
`
`not include proof of a reciprocal undertaking by the petitioners. See, e.g.,
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Arendi, S.A.R.L., IPR2014-01143, Paper
`
`No. 11, at 6 (October 2, 2014).
`
`For these reasons, Nintendo’s Motion has not met its burden to establish
`
`entitlement to the relief it requests.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Joinder will frustrate just and speedy resolution of the ‘954 IPR
`
`As the Material Facts establish, the Patent Owner has settled the underlying
`
`district court litigation with each and every Petitioner in IPR2014-00954. What
`
`remains are logistics – the filing of dismissal papers (in just one case), waiting on
`
`the district court to enter formal dismissal Orders, and then the filing (to the Board)
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`of a formal motion to terminate. For all intents and purposes, the district court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`litigation is over, and it has been almost to the day Nintendo filed its paperwork in
`
`the ‘568 IPR.
`
`Nintendo contends that it filed “this petition and joinder motion to ensure
`
`that the trial is completed in the event that the current petitioners in the ‘954 IPR
`
`reach settlement with the Patent Owner.” (See, Motion, at 9, emphasis supplied).
`
`With due respect, Nintendo’s position is disingenuous. As the Material Facts
`
`establish, many of the parties had publicly settled out of the related district court
`
`litigation before the Board’s Decision to Institute Trial (on December 15, 2014),
`
`while still others settled out, once again publicly, shortly thereafter. By the time
`
`the Motion was actually filed (on virtually the last day possible), the Patent Owner
`
`indeed had settled the district court litigation (either actually, or in principle) with
`
`every petitioner in IPR2014-00954. Given the circumstances, Nintendo
`
`presumably knew full well the true state of affairs, namely, that the disputes that
`
`precipitated the underlying IPR were going away.2
`
`
`2
`Tellingly, Nintendo’s Motion states that “Sony does not oppose Nintendo’s
`Motion For Joinder” (see, alleged Material Fact No. 4). As noted, it is
`unknown whether this is true, but it follows, logically, that Nintendo could
`not make this statement unless it had been in touch with Sony at the time.
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Although Nintendo states in its Motion (at page 2) it is acting to avoid being
`
`“prejudiced” if “all petitioners reach a settlement,” the circumstances suggest the
`
`exact opposite situation is true.
`
`To state the obvious, and given that it is asserting the same invalidity
`
`argument and evidence, Nintendo could have joined the original petitioners in
`
`IPR2014-00954 simply by adding its name to that petition. Indeed, as far as the
`
`record here reflects, there was nothing stopping Nintendo from joining the
`
`underlying IPR. Plainly, and given that Nintendo waited eight (8) months,
`
`Nintendo’s joinder is prejudicial to the Patent Owner (and perhaps the other
`
`petitioners), at the very least because the Patent Owner settled the underlying
`
`litigation in part under the assumption that such settlements also would have the
`
`effect of disposing of the IPR.
`
`Nintendo’s joinder here should be denied because it will frustrate the “just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of the underlying IPR itself. See, 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.1(b) (“every proceeding” matters when considering the policy issues
`
`surrounding a potential joinder). Stated another way, if a holdout (to the
`
`underlying IPR) litigant like Nintendo is permitted to join an IPR despite
`
`
`The Motion does not state that Nintendo was unaware of the Sony settlement
`discussions, and the defendants regularly had joint calls about the case.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`settlement by the underlying parties, a Patent Owner may never be assured that a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`given settlement will have its intended consequences. As long as such holdouts
`
`remain (and Konami remains one such holdout here), there is always the possibility
`
`that litigants can file serial IPRs, just as Nintendo has done. In promulgating the
`
`AIA, Congress intended to prevent the serial harassment of patent holders by the
`
`filing of multiple petitions. (See, Markup of America Invents Action, page
`
`72:1438-39). Granting Nintendo’s motion would run counter to these goals and
`
`encourage such gamesmanship (multiple, serial petitions), thereby adding
`
`significant burden to the Board.
`
`Nintendo’s suggestion that “no party will be prejudiced if the Board permits
`
`joinder” (Motion, at 8) is untrue. As noted above, and at the very least, joinder
`
`will frustrate the expectations of the Patent Owner (and perhaps the other parties to
`
`the underlying IPR), and it will extend that IPR unnecessarily instead of allowing it
`
`to end in the “speedy” and “inexpensive” manner that the parties there intended.
`
`This is an unjust result.
`
`Nintendo was served with the Complaint in October 2013. It filed the
`
`present Petition and Motion more than one year after such service. Nintendo’s
`
`Motion does not explain why it did not become a petitioner in the underlying ‘954
`
`IPR; on this key point, Nintendo’s motivation is unexplained. That said,
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`Nintendo’s true motives now are clear from its footnote on page 2 of the Motion:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Nintendo will continue [following along with the other petitioners] unless and
`
`until the ‘954 IPR is terminated as to all other petitioners.” (See, Motion, at 2,
`
`FN1, emphasis supplied). Given that Nintendo knew or should have known that
`
`the underlying dispute was resolved, this statement makes clear that Nintendo
`
`wants a blank slate to offer new arguments and evidence. This is manifestly
`
`unfair to the Patent Owner, and it explicitly contravenes 35 U.S.C. §315(b)
`
`because Nintendo was served with the complaint over one (1) year before it filed
`
`the Petition and Motion.
`
`Finally, and as a procedural matter, joinder is inappropriate unless and until
`
`the Board has received the Patent Owner’s preliminary response, now set for
`
`February 20, 2015, and determines to institute Nintendo’s Petition. See, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§311(c).
`
`For these reasons, the Motion should be denied.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/David H. Judson/
`
`By: _____________________________
`
`
`
`David H. Judson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 17, 2015
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 2002 Patent Owner and Defendants’ Activision Publishing, Inc. and
`Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. stipulated motion for dismissal with
`prejudice in the related district court litigation, filed February 2,
`2015
`Exhibit 2003 Patent Owner and Defendant Square Enix, Inc. stipulated motion
`for dismissal with prejudice in the related district court litigation,
`filed February 2, 2015
`Exhibit 2004 Patent Owner and Defendant Riot Games, Inc. stipulated motion
`for dismissal with prejudice in the related district court litigation,
`filed February 3, 2015
`
`Exhibit 2005 Patent Owner and Defendant Capcom U.S.A., Inc. stipulated
`motion for dismissal with prejudice in the related district court
`litigation, filed February 5, 2015
`Exhibit 2006 Patent Owner and Defendant Electronic Arts, Inc. stipulated
`motion for dismissal with prejudice in the related district court
`litigation, filed February 6, 2015
`Exhibit 2007 Patent Owner and Defendant Bandai Namco Games America, Inc.
`stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice in the related district
`court litigation, filed February 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00568
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 17th day of February, 2015, a true and correct
`
`copy of the foregoing Babbage Holdings, LLC’s Opposition to the Motion For
`
`Joinder, was served via electronic mail upon jsp@nixonvan.com (Joseph S.
`
`Presta), and rwf@nixonvan.com (Robert W. Faris).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David H. Judson/
`Registration No. 30,467
`Attorney for Babbage Holdings, LLC
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`