`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR2015-00635
`Patent 5,563,883
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FROM PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................................................... 1
`
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 1
`
`A. Patent Owner Seeks the Same Additional Discovery that the Board Already
`Ordered Petitioner to Provide in an Earlier Proceeding Initiated by Petitioner
`Concerning the Same Patent .............................................................................. 1
`
`B. Petitioner Indemnified Comcast in an Infringement Lawsuit Relating to the
`’883 Patent Filed More than One Year Prior to Petitioner’s Request for Inter
`Partes Review .................................................................................................... 2
`
`C. Petitioner’s Ability to Control Litigation against Comcast ............................... 3
`
`III. REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................. 4
`
`A. The Requested Discovery is Based on More than a Possibility and Mere
`Allegation ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`B. The Requested Discovery Does Not Overlap with Petitioner’s Litigation
`Positions or their Underlying Basis ................................................................... 7
`
`C. Patent Owner Has No Other Means of Obtaining the Requested Discovery .... 7
`
`D. The Requested Discovery Includes Easily Understandable Instructions .......... 8
`
`E. The Requested Discovery Is Not Overly Burdensome ...................................... 8
`
`IV. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Arris Group, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00746, Paper 15 (PTAB Jul. 24, 2014) ................................................ 4, 5, 6
`
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
` IPR 2013-00453, Paper 40 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2014) ..................................................... 5
`
`Ex Parte Robert F. Shaw,
` Appeal 1997-3258,
`2004 WL 5580635 (BPAI May 21, 2004) ................................................................... 6
`
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
` IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) ................................................ 5, 7, 8
`
`In re Freeman,
`30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................... 6
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ....................................................................................................... 5, 6, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ............................................................................................................... 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 FR 48,756................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51 (b)(2) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.52(a) ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73 ............................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`Exhibit #
`
`C-Cation 2001
`
`C-Cation 2002
`
`C-Cation 2003
`
`C-Cation 2004
`
`C-Cation 2005
`
`C-Cation 2006
`
`C-Cation 2007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`C-Cation Technologies, LLC’s Proposed Discovery Request
`to Arris Group, Inc.
`
`Complaint, C-Cation Techs., LLC v. Comcast Corp., No
`2:11-cv-00030 (filed Jan. 21, 2011), D.I. 1.
`
`FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
`of Arris Group, Inc.
`
`Scheduling and Discovery Order, C-Cation Techs., LLC v.
`Comcast Corp., No 2:11-cv-00030 (filed Oct. 3, 2012), D.I.
`145.
`
`Defendant Comcast Cable’s Supplemental Intial Disclosures
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), C-Cation Techs., LLC
`v. Comcast Corp., No 2:11-cv-00030.
`
`“Arris Acquires Motorola Home: Creates Premier Video
`Delivery and Broadband Technology Company” (April 17,
`2013), available at
`http://ir.arrisi.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=87823&p=irol-
`newsArticle&ID=1807670.
`
`“Corporate Terms and Conditions of Sale,” March 2012,
`available as of July 7, 2014 at
`http://moto.arrisi.com/_docs/EULA_Warranty.pdf.
`
`C-Cation 2008
`
`Transcript of June 26, 2014 Conference Call, IPR2014-00746.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`I.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner C-Cation Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”) requests that the
`
`Board authorize certain narrowly targeted discovery from Petitioner Arris Group, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) contained in Exhibit 2001, which consists of a single document request.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.51 (b)(2), 42.52(a). This motion is filed in accordance with the
`
`Board’s April 2, 2015 Order. (Paper No. 6.)
`
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Seeks the Same Additional Discovery that the Board
`Already Ordered Petitioner to Provide in an Earlier Proceeding
`Initiated by Petitioner Concerning the Same Patent
`This is the second request for inter partes review that Petitioner has filed
`
`
`
`against claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 (“the ’883 patent”).1 On May
`
`13, 2014, Petitioner filed IPR2014-00746, which requested review of claims 1, 3, 4,
`
`and 14. During the time period allotted for Patent Owner to prepare a preliminary
`
`response, Patent Owner sought limited additional discovery from Petitioner relating to
`
`whether the petition was time barred due to the Petitioner’s privity with an earlier
`
`litigant. The Board granted Patent Owner permission to file a motion for additional
`
`
`1
`Overall, this is the third request for inter partes review that has been filed
`
`against the ’883 patent by the defendants in a co-pending district court litigation filed
`
`on February 4, 2014 and captioned C-Cation Techs. v. Time Warner Cable Inc. et al.,
`
`14-cv-00059 (E.D. Tex.) (“Second Texas Action”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`discovery (IPR2014-00746, Paper 9), and then, after receiving briefing from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`parties, ordered Petitioner to produce the requested discovery. IPR2014-00746, Paper
`
`15. The instant discovery sought by Patent Owner is identical to the discovery
`
`ordered by the Board in that proceeding.
`
`
`
` After Patent Owner filed its preliminary response, the Board denied
`
`institution concerning claims 1, 3, and 4, and granted institution as to claim 14.
`
`IPR2014-00746, Paper 22. In the instant proceeding, Petitioner again requests review
`
`of claims 1, 3, and 4.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Indemnified Comcast in an Infringement Lawsuit Relating
`to the ’883 Patent Filed More than One Year Prior to Petitioner’s
`Request for Inter Partes Review
`On January 25, 2011, Patent Owner filed a complaint (Ex. 2002) for patent
`
`infringement against cable service provider Comcast Corporation and others in the
`
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “First Texas
`
`Action”), alleging that each of the defendants’ cable systems infringed the ’883
`
`patent. In the First Texas Action, Patent Owner accused Comcast’s systems that
`
`include Petitioner’s products, specifically cable modem termination systems
`
`(“CMTSs”) and cable modems, of infringing the ’883 patent.
`
`In financial disclosures filed by Petitioner with the Securities and Exchange
`
`Commission (“SEC”), Petitioner admitted that Comcast made indemnification claims
`
`against Petitioner with respect to the First Texas Action. For example, Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`2013 annual report, as filed with the SEC states:
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C-Cation:
`The Company and Comcast reached a settlement related to
`Comcast’s litigation with C-Cation, whereby the Company agreed
`to pay Comcast to settle indemnification claims against the
`Company in the quarter ended December 31, 2013.
`
`(Ex. 2003 at 125 (emphasis added).)
`
`The foregoing admission is consistent with Comcast’s disclosures in the First
`
`Texas Action. In that action the Court required all parties to disclose:
`
`any indemnity or insuring agreements under which any person or
`entity may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered in
`this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to
`satisfy the judgment; . . . .
`
`(Ex. 2004 at 5.) In response, Comcast stated:
`
`Certain of Comcast Cable’s vendors including, but not limited to,
`Arris Group, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., and Motorola, Inc., may be
`liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered in this action or to
`indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.
`
`(Ex. 2005 at 15.)2
`C.
`Petitioner’s Ability to Control Litigation against Comcast
`
`Additional public information confirms the existence of an indemnification
`
`2
`Petitioner acquired Motorola Home, the manufacturer of Motorola CMTSs and
`
`cable modems, on April 17, 2013. (Ex. 2006.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`agreement between Petitioner and Comcast that provided Petitioner with at least the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`contractual ability to control the defense and settlement of the First Texas Action (as
`
`far as it related to products supplied by Petitioner).
`
`For example, Petitioner’s publicly available standard “Corporate Terms and
`
`Conditions of Sale” state that Petitioner will “indemnify, defend and hold Customer
`
`harmless” for allegations of patent infringement based on products Petitioner provided
`
`to Customer under three conditions: “(i) Customer promptly notifies ARRIS of the
`
`Claim, (ii) Customer gives ARRIS all applicable evidence . . . and (iii) Customer
`
`gives ARRIS reasonable assistance in and sole control of the defense and all
`
`negotiations for its settlement or compromise.” (Ex. 2007 at 6, section 22)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`III. REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner moves to obtain very specific discovery from Petitioner. The
`
`discovery requested consists of a single request for production, identical to the request
`
`that the Board ordered Petitioner to produce in IPR2014-00746:
`
`Agreement(s) between Arris and Comcast under which Comcast
`requested indemnification for the claims brought against Comcast in
`the Texas Litigation that reference (or are contingent on) Arris’s
`ability to control the litigation.
`
`Compare Ex. 2001 with IPR2014-00746, Paper 15 at 5.)
`
`Patent Owner expects that the requested discovery, together with additional
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`information recently obtained by Patent Owner, will make a compelling showing that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner “exercised or could have exercised control over” the claims of infringement
`
`of the ʼ883 patent against Comcast’s use of Petitioner’s products in the First Texas
`
`Action, and, consequently, Petitioner’s petition for inter partes review is time-barred
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).3 Patent Owner’s discovery request is therefore “necessary
`
`in the interest of justice” (see 35 U.S.C. § 316 (a)(5)), and further, meets each of the
`
`factors set forth in Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001,
`
`Paper 26 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) as explained below.
`
`A.
`
`The Requested Discovery is Based on More than a Possibility and
`Mere Allegation
`
`Petitioner has already publicly conceded the existence of an indemnification
`
`agreement (Ex. 2008 at p. 16, ll. 2-3), the content of which is supported by evidence
`
`already in Patent Owner’s possession. The document request therefore falls within the
`
`bounds of permissible additional discovery, as it did in the previous proceeding filed
`
`by Petitioner. IPR2014-00746, Paper 15; see also Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett
`
`Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, Paper 40 at 5-6 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2014).
`
`
`3
`The Trial Practice Guide specifies that in determining if a non-party may be
`
`
`recognized as a privy, whether “the non-party exercised or could have exercised
`
`control over a party’s participation in a proceeding” is a factor that should be
`
`considered. See 77 FR 48,756 (“Trial Practice Guide”) at 48,759.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`Further, as the requested discovery only seeks indemnification agreements that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`reference or are contingent on Petitioner’s ability to control the litigation, the single
`
`request for production is calculated to provide useful information concerning whether
`
`Petitioner’s petition in the instant proceeding should be time-barred under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(b) because its privy was sued more than a year before Petitioner filed its petition.
`
`IPR2014-00746, Paper 15; Atlanta Gas Light Co., IPR2013-00453, Paper 40 at 7;
`
`Garmin, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 at 7.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner is estopped from litigating the privity issue
`
`in this proceeding under either administrative res judicata or under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.73(a), and that as a result, no useful discovery could be uncovered. Petitioner is
`
`incorrect. Its assertions as to estoppel are fatally flawed at least because the Board did
`
`not make a final decision that was essential to its final judgment in the earlier
`
`proceeding. See Ex Parte Robert F. Shaw, Appeal 1997-3258, 2004 WL 5580635, at
`
`*13 (BPAI May 21, 2004) (noting that the doctrine res judicata may preclude a party
`
`from re-litigating an issue when: “(2) the issue was actually litigated in the fiirst [sic]
`
`action; [and] (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first
`
`action.”) (citing In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Here, the Board’s
`
`institution decision was not final as to privity (see IPR2014-00746, Paper 22 at 10),
`
`the issue was not litigated after the institution decision, and the Board did not need to,
`
`and did not resolve the issue in issuing its judgment in the earlier action (see IPR2014-
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`00746, Paper 28). For the same reasons, raising the privity issue in this proceeding is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`not inconsistent with the Board’s prior judgment, and therefore Patent Owner is not
`
`precluded from doing so under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`B.
`
`The Requested Discovery Does Not Overlap with Petitioner’s
`Litigation Positions or their Underlying Basis
`
`Patent Owner does not seek to prematurely learn the litigation positions or
`
`strategies of Petitioner in the co-pending district court litigation. To the best of Patent
`
`Owner’s knowledge, the requested discovery does not relate to Petitioner’s litigation
`
`positions, and is therefore proper under Factor 2 of Garmin. See Garmin, IPR2012-
`
`00001, Paper 26 at 13.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Has No Other Means of Obtaining the Requested
`Discovery
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed discovery request narrowly targets indemnification
`
`agreements that relate to whether Petitioner had the ability to control Comcast’s
`
`defense in the First Texas Action. While Petitioner previously publicly conceded the
`
`existence of an agreement (Ex. 2008 at p. 16, ll. 2-3), the terms are confidential and
`
`are not publicly available.
`
`
`
`In addition, the information sought is not available to Patent Owner in the
`
`Second Texas Action. Petitioner’s counsel in that litigation has refused to consent to
`
`the use in this proceeding of any confidential information produced in the litigation on
`
`the ground that Patent Owner is precluded from raising the privity issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The Requested Discovery Includes Easily Understandable
`Instructions
`
`Patent Owner’s instructions are easily understandable and are based on the
`
`instructions already approved by the Board in Garmin. See Garmin, IPR2012-00001,
`
`Paper No. 26 at 14.
`
`E.
`
`The Requested Discovery Is Not Overly Burdensome
`
`As Patent Owner’s proposed discovery seeks the same discovery that Petitioner
`
`provided to Patent Owner in a previous proceeding, any financial, human resource, or
`
`time burden on Petitioner is negligible. Moreover, the request is narrowly tailored to
`
`the privity issue and seeks only indemnification agreements that, according to the
`
`Trial Practice Guide, are relevant to the determination of whether Petitioner’s petition
`
`in the instant proceeding is time barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (b).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the above, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board allow
`
`the proposed discovery contained in Exhibit 2001.
`
`
`Date: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`___/Lewis V. Popovski/______
`Lewis V. Popovski
`Registration No. 37,423
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Filed: April 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FROM PETITIONER together with Exhibits 2001
`
`to 2008 were served via e-mail on April 8, 2015, in their entirety on the following:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`asommer@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-3817
`T: (202) 282-5000; F: (202) 282-5100
`
`
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`
`Jonathan E. Retsky
`jretsky@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: (312) 558-3791; F: (312) 558-5700
`
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`
`
` /David J. Kaplan/
`David J. Kaplan
`Registration No. 57,117
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`Date: April 8, 2015
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`
`
`9