UNITED STATES I’ATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.;
`BROAD OCEAN MOTOR LLC; and
`'
`BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`Petitioners
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`US. Patent NO. 7,626,349
`
`Issue Date: December 1, 2009
`Title: LOW NOISE HEATING, VENTILATING AND/OR
`AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED
`
`INSTITUTED INTER PAR TES REVIEW
`
`(37 CPR. §42.122(b))
`
`Case NO. IPR2015-00762
`
`NY 785231v.1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ......................... -. .............................. 1
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE RULES .................................. 4
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Multiple Reasons Show That Joinder. IS
`Appropriate ................................................................................. 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Considerations of Efficiency Support
`Jcinder.....................- .......................................................... 6
`
`Considerations of Fairness and Equity
`Support Joinder ................................................................. 7
`
`Public Policy Considerations Support
`Joinder ............................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`The Ground of Patentability Raised In The Second
`Petition Is Not “New” ................................................................. 9
`
`C.
`
`Ioinde‘r Will Not Result In Unnecessary Delay .......................... 9
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 1 1
`
`NY 785231v.1
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. ISIS Innovation Limited,
`IPR2012-00022 ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`Dell Inc. v. Network-I Security Solutions, Inc,
`IPR2013—00385 ....................................................................................................... 4
`Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 US. 653 (1969) ................................................................. 7
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Mrowski Family Ventures, LLC,
`134 S. Ct. 843 (2014) .........................7.................................................................... 8
`Old Reliable Wholesale, Inc. v. Cornell Corp,
`635 F.3d 539 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 7
`Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co,
`324 US. 806 (1945) ............................................................................................... 8
`Target Corp. 12. Destination Maternity Corp, IPR2014-00508 ................................ 4
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ....................................................................................................... 2, 3
`35 U.S.C. §315(b) ...................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. §315(C) .................................................................................................. 1, 4
`35 U.S.C. §315(e) ...................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. §316(a)(11) .............................................................................................. 10
`35 U.S.C. §316(b) ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`Reg ulations
`
`37 C.F.R. §1.56(a) ............................................................-.......................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.63(b) .................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 2
`37 CPR. §42.64(b)(2) ........................................................................................... 2, 6
`37 CPR. §42.100(c)................................................................................................ 10
`37 C.F.R. §42.101(b) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 CPR. §42.104(c) .............................................................................................. 3, 5
`37 CPR. §42.122(b) ............................................................................................. 1, 4
`37 CPR. §42.123 ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`

`

`1.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §42.l22(b), Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean Motor Co., Ltd, Broad Ocean Motor LLC, and Broad Ocean Technologies,
`
`LLC (collectively, “Broad Ocean” or
`
`“Petitioner”) hereby moves to have its
`
`Second Petition for inter partes review of ciaims i-3, 8—9, 12, 16, and 19 of US.
`
`Patent No. 7,626,349 (“Second ’349 Petition”), filed contemporaneously herewith,
`
`joined with the inter partes review, Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. et al.
`
`v. Nidec Motor Corp, Case No.1PR2014—01121, which was instituted on
`
`January 21, 2015.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On September 25, 2013, Patent Owner Nidec Motor Corporation
`
`(“Nidec” or “Patent Owner”), filed a presently copending lawsuit against Broad
`
`Ocean involving the ‘349 patent, Nidec Motor Corporation v. Broad Ocean Motor,
`
`LLC et at, Civil Action No. 4:13-cv—01895—JCH (ED. M0.) (the “Litigation”).
`
`The Litigation is currently stayed, and the Court has ordered the parties to submit a
`
`report by April 2, 2015 on the status of the instituted inter partes trials for
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean 12. Nidec Motor, IPR2014-01 121 and Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean v. Nidec Motor, IPR2014—01122.
`
`2.
`
`On July 3, 2014, Broad Ocean filed its original petition seeking an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1—3, 8-9, 12, 16 and 19 of the ‘349 patent. Ground
`
`NY 785231v,1
`
`1
`
`

`

`No. 1 of the original petition sought the invalidation of claims 1—3, 8-9, 12, 16 and
`
`19 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) based on Hideji
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`
`JP 2003-348885 (“Hideji”). Ground No. 2 of the original petition sought the
`
`invalidation of the same claims 1-3, 8-9, 12, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 based
`
`on the Bessler and Kocybik references. §§§ Zhongsha‘rt Broad Ocean v. Nidec
`
`Motor, IPR2014—01 121, Paper No. 1 (Petition) at pp. 3—4.
`
`3. With its original petition, Broad Ocean filed an English translation of
`Hideji, but omitted an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of that-translation. See
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor, lPR2014-01121, Exhibits 1003—1005.
`
`4.
`
`In its Preliminary Response to the original petition, the Patent Owner
`
`Nidec requested that Hideji be stricken from consideration by the Board for failing
`to comply With 37 C.F.R. §42.63(b), but nevertheless addressed the merits of
`
`Ground N0. 1. fl Zhongsharz Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor, IPR2014-01121,
`
`Paper No. 14 (Preliminary Response) at pp. 5—1 1.
`
`5.
`
`After the service of the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, during
`
`a telephonic conference with the Board, Petitioner Broad Ocean explained that
`
`Patent Owner’s
`
`request
`
`to strike Hideji was untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.64(b)(1), but nevertheless sought to file an attesting affidavit as supplemental
`
`evidence under 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(2).
`
`§_e_§ Zhongshart Broad Ocean v. Nidec
`
`Motor, IPR2014-01121, Paper No. 22 (Rehearing Request) at pp. 23.
`
`Instead, the
`
`NY 785231v.1
`
`'
`
`2
`
`

`

`Board authorized Petitioner Broad Ocean to file a motion to correct under
`
`37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.104(c).
`
`$53 Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor,
`
`IPR2014-01121, Paper No. 16 (Order). Petitioner Broad Ocean then filed a motion
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(c) to file the affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
`
`originally filed English translation of Hideji.
`
`fig Zhongshan Broad Ocean v.
`
`Nidec Motor, IPR2014-01121, Paper No.17 (Motion to Submit a Corrected
`
`Exhibit).
`
`6.
`The Board denied Petitioner’s motion under §42.104(c) to file an
`affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the originally filed English translation of
`
`Hideji and, consequently, refused to consider Hideji. g Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`v. Nidec Motor, IPR2014-01121, Paper No. 20 (Decision) at pp. 9—13. As a result,
`
`the Board declined to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-3, 8-9, 12, 16 and
`
`19 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) based on Hideji, but did inStitute an inter partes
`
`review of those same claims under §103 based on Bessler and Kocybik. E Paper
`
`No. 20 (Decision) at pp. 13 & 17.
`
`7.
`
`Concurrently with this Motion, Broad Ocean is filing its Second ‘349
`
`Petition, challenging claims 1~3,
`
`.8—9, 12, 16, and 19 of the ‘349 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) based on the same Hideji
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`
`JP 2003-348885 (“Hideji”) that was excluded from consideration in the related
`
`1PR2014~01121 proceeding solely due to an omitted attesting affidavit.
`
`The
`
`NY 785231v.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`English translation of Hideji filed herewith as Exhibit 1005 includes an attesting I
`
`affidavit. EEK. 1005 at p. 26.
`
`8.
`
`Upon institution,
`
`the Board issued a Scheduling Order
`
`in
`
`1PR2014-01 121 (go Paper No. 21). The Board scheduled the Initial Conference
`
`Call for February 24, 2015.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE RULES
`
`The Board has discretion to join a properly filed IPR petition to a previously
`
`instituted IPR proceeding, even Where the petitioner seeking joinder is already a
`
`petitioner in the instituted proceeding. 35 U.S.C. §315(c); 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b);
`
`se_e also Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp, IPR2014-00508, Paper
`
`No. 28 (Decision Granting Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing) at pp. 5~19 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 12, 2015); Ariosa Diagnostics v. ISIS Innovation Limited, IPR2012-00022,
`
`Paper No. 166 (Final Written Decision) at pp. 18—22 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014). This
`
`request for joinder is timely, and the time periods set forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b)
`
`do not apply to Broad Ocean’s Second ‘349 Petition because it is accompanied by
`
`this request forjoinder. 35 U.S.C. §315(c); 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b).
`
`The Board will determine 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.” Dell Inc. v. Network—J Security Solutions, Inc,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17 (Decision) at p. 3 (July 29, 2013).
`
`“A motion for
`
`—ms:23n.14—
`
`

`

`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.” Dell,
`
`1PR2013-00385, Paper No. 17 (Decision) at p. 4.
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Board should exercise its discretion and grant this Motion for Jcinder of
`
`the Second ‘349 Petition with the already instituted IPR2014-01121 proceeding
`
`because joinder provides a vehicle to efficiently consider all of these issues and
`
`aVOid any unfair prejudice to Patent Owner Nidec. Absent joinder, Petitioner
`
`Broad Ocean will be unfairly prejudiced.
`
`A. Multiple Reasons Show That Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`Joinde‘r is appropriate here for reasons including efficiency, fairness, equity,
`
`and public policy.
`
`In the instituted IPR2014—01 121 proceeding, Petitioner has tried every
`
`available procedural avenue to have the Board consider the affidavit attesting to
`
`the accuracyof the Originally filed English translation of Hideji. On November 10,
`
`2014, more than two months prior to the January 21, 2015 Decision instituting
`
`trial, Petitioner moved under 37 C.F.R. §42.104(c) to file the attesting affidavit as
`
`part of a
`
`corrected exhibit.
`
`gee Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec,
`
`NY 785231v.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014—01121, Paper No. 17. Petitioner has also sought to have the attesting
`
`affidavit considered by the Board as supplemental evidence pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.64(b)(2) and as supplemental information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.123. gee
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean, IPR2014-01121, Paper No. 22 (Rehearing Request) at
`
`pp. 2-10;
`
`
`see als_o Attachment A hereto.
`
`If Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is
`
`denied, this motion for joinder is Petitioner’s last opportunity to have the Board
`
`consider Hideji on its merits.
`
`1.
`
`Considerations of Efficiency Support Joinder
`
`Joinder will allow for efficiencies in the proceeding. First, both petitions
`
`involve the same two parties, Broad Ocean and Nidec, and the same set of
`
`challenged claims, namely claims 1—3, 8—9, 12, 16 and 19 of the ‘349 patent.
`
`Second, the Board is already familiar with the claimed subject matter and has
`
`already addressed the construction of the challenged claims in its Decision
`
`instituting trial in IPR2014-01121 (fie Paper No. 20 at pp. 6-8). In its Second ‘349
`
`Petition, Petitioner has adopted the Board’s claim constructions. Third, the Second
`
`‘349 Petition relies upon the exact same Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani that was
`
`filed with the original petition.
`
`Finally, any prejudice to Patent Owner Nidec will be minimal
`
`-- and
`
`certainly not undue —— for the reasons above. Moreover, Nidec is well familiar with
`
`Hideji.
`
`Indeed, in its Preliminary Response in IPR2014—01121, Patent Owner
`
`dam
`
`

`

`Nidec
`
`addressed the merits of Hideji.
`
`See Zhongshan Broad Ocean,
`
`IPR2014-Ol 121, Paper No. 14 (Preliminary Response) at pp. 8—1 1.
`
`2.
`
`Considerations of Fairness and Equity Support Joinder
`
`Joinder will prevent unfairness and inequity to Broad Ocean and the public
`
`at large. Because Broad Ocean’s one-year IPR deadline has passed, Broad Ocean
`would be prejudiced absent joinder, because its Second ‘349 Petition would
`
`otherwise be barred under 35 U.S.C. §3ll5(b). Permitting joinder of the Second
`
`‘349 Petition will prevent unfairness to both Broad Ocean and the public at large,
`
`both of whom have thus far been deprived of the benefit of the Board’s review of
`
`the ‘349 patent claims in view of Hideji. fl Old Reliable Wholesale, Inc. v.
`
`Cornell Corp, 635 F.3d 539, 548 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he PTO has acknowledged
`
`expertise in evaluating prior art and assessing patent validity”). Furthermore,
`
`should joinder not be granted by the Board and Patent Owner Nidec prevails on
`
`Ground No. 2 (under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on Bessler and Kocybik)
`
`in
`
`IPR2014-01121, Nidec may try to argue in the Litigation that Broad Ocean is
`
`estopped from relying on Hideji under 35 U.S.C. §315(e).
`
`3.
`
`Public Policy Considerations Support Joinder
`
`Joinder is further supported by public policy considerations and the public
`
`interest in seeing invalid patents fermally invalidated. The Board is charged with
`
`considering the “effect. . .on the economy” and “the integrity of the patent system,”
`
`NY 785231v.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`among other considerations, when implementing and applying its rules, including
`
`
`those relating to joinder. See 35 U.S.C. §3i6(b); see alfl 37 CPR. §l.56(a)
`(“A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest
`
`is best served...when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is
`
`aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability.”).
`
`There is an “important public interest in permitting full and free competition in the
`
`use of ideas which are in reality a part of the public domain” and a corresponding
`
`“strong federal policy favoring free competition inideas which do not merit patent
`
`protection.” Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 US. 653, 656, 670 (1969). The Supreme
`
`Court
`
`recently confirmed these policies,
`
`stating that although the “public '
`
`interest...favors the maintenance of a well-functioning patent system,” “the
`
`‘public’ aiso has a ‘paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies. . .are kept
`
`Within their legitimate scope.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Mrowski Family Ventures,
`
`LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843, 851-52 (2014) (quoting Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v.
`
`Auto. Maint. Mach. Ca, 324 US. 806, 816 (1945)).
`
`These important public policy considerations
`
`further
`
`support
`
`joinder,
`
`because, as shown in the Second ‘349 Petition, claims 1-3, 8-9, 12, 16 and 19 of
`
`the ‘349 patent are invalid under §102(b) based on Hideji.
`
`NY 785231v.i
`
`8
`
`

`

`B.
`
`The Ground of Patentability Raised In The Second Petition Is Not
`“New”
`
`The Second ‘349 Petition challenges claims 1-3, 8—9, 12, 16, and 19 of the
`
`‘349 patent under §102(b) based on the same Hideji reference that was excluded
`
`from consideration in the related IPR2014-01121 proceeding solely due to an
`
`omitted attesting affidavit. Zhongshan Broad Ocean, IPR2014-01121, Paper
`
`No. 20 (Decision)
`
`at p. 13.
`
`However,
`
`in its Preliminary Response
`
`in
`
`IPR2014-01121, Patent Owner Nidec addressed the merits of Hideji.
`_S_e_e
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean, IPR2014—01 121, Paper No. 14 (Preliminary Response) at
`
`pp. 8-11. Thus, While the Board did not reach the substance of Ground N0. 1
`based on Hideji in IPR2014-01121, the Hideji reference is not new to Patent
`
`Owner Nidec...
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Will Not Result In Unnecessary Delay
`
`Permitting joinder will not unduly affect the IPR2014-01121 proceedings.
`
`As discussed above, the Second ‘349 Petition presents the same exact ground of
`
`invalidity that was presented in the original petition but not substantively
`
`considered by the Board for evidentiary reasons. Furthermore, Patent Owner
`
`Nidec has already considered and substantively responded to that ground in its
`
`Preliminary Response to the original petition. Moreover, any additional discovery
`
`will be minimal because the Second ‘349 Petition relies upon the exact same
`
`b
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani that was filed with the original petition. There are
`
`no other eXpert declarants.
`
`Petitioner is willing to forfeit a reasonable portion of its response period to
`
`the extent that is deemed necessary to provide Patent Owner with sufficient time to
`
`address the sole ground of unpatentability in the Second ‘349 Petition. Petitioner
`
`Iwill also accommodate any reasonable logistical or Scheduling request of Patent
`Owner in order to accommodate the joinder of the proceedings. For example,
`
`Petitioner is willing to stipulate to extending the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response and to extending the due date for Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`responsef
`
`Finally, even if the Board were to determine that joinder will require a minor
`
`extension of the schedule, such an extension is permitted bylaw and is not a reason
`
`for denyingjoinder. 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. §42.100(c).
`
`N'Y785231v.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`It is submitted that Petitioner has established good cause for joining this
`
`proceeding with 1PR2014—01 121. It is submitted that the Motion should be granted
`
`and trial instituted with respect to the ground Set forth therein. Accordingly, for at
`
`least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests joinder of the Second ‘349 Petition
`
`with IPR2014-01121.
`
`Dated: February 20, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_
`/S/ Steven F. Meyer
`Steven F. Meyer (Reg. No. 35,613)
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`
`Three World Financial Center
`
`New York, New York 10281—2101
`
`Attorneys far Petitioners Zhongshan
`Broad Ocean Motor C0,, Ltd;
`
`Broad Ocean Motor LLC; and
`
`Brand OCean Technologies, LLC
`
`NY 785231v.1
`
`I l
`
`

`

`W
`
`

`

`Meyer, Steven F.
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Kattula, Amy <Amy.Kattula@USPTO.GOV>
`Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:21 AM
`Meyer, Steven F.
`sbrown@hoveywi|liams.com; mwalters@hoveywilliams.com;
`litigation@hoveywilliams.com;jcrawford@hoveywilliams.com;
`jschwent@thompsoncoburn.com; djinkins@thornpsoncoburn.com;
`syoo@thompsoncoburn.com; Baker, Charles
`RE: IPR2014—01121 and IPR2014-01122: Request to File Supplemental Information
`
`The panel indicated that they have received the requests for authorization to file supplemental information and that
`they will address them with the decisions on the related requests for rehearing.
`
`From: Miraglia, Bettina M. [mailto:BMiraglia@lockelord.com] On Behalf Of Meyer, Steven F.
`Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:55 AM
`To: Kattula, Amy
`Cc: sbrown@hoveyv_viltiams.com; mwalters@hoveywilliamscom; litigation@hoveywilliams.com;
`jcrawford©hovemilliamscom; jschwent@thompsoncoburncom; djinkins©thompsoncoburncom;
`syoo@thompsoncoburn.com; Baker, Charles
`Subject: IPR2014—01121 and IPR2014—01122: Request to File Supplemental Information
`
`Paralegal Kattula:
`
`February 10, 2015
`
`I am lead counsel for Petitioner Broad Ocean in IPR2014-01121 and IPR2014-01122. Petitioner
`requests permission to file a motion to file supplemental information in the form of affidavits attesting to the
`accuracy of the English translation of Japanese references, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.123(a) and/or
`
`(c). Petitioner submits that this request is supported by Norman International Inc. v. Andrew J. Toti Test.
`
`Trust, 1PR2014-00283, Paper 29 (Decision) (PTAB Sept. 29, 2014).
`
`With respect to IPR2014-01121, the trial was instituted on January 21, 2015 — less than one
`month ago. (ice Paper No. 20). E 37 C.F.R. §42.123(a)(1). Trial was instituted on claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 16
`and 19. SQ Paper No. 20 at p. 17. Per §42.123(a)(2), the attesting affidavit for the Hideji Reference is relevant
`to claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 19 of the ‘349 patent. & Revised Petition (Paper No. 5) at pp. 11-36; Request
`For Rehearing. The attesting affidavit could not have been obtained earlier due to a mistaken belief that the
`attesting affidavit had already been obtained (@ Motion To Submit Corrected Exhibit, Paper No. 17), and
`consideration of the attesting affidavit would be in the interests ofjustice because claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 19
`are reasonably likely to be invalid based on the Hideji Reference (fl Revised Petition at pp. 11-36). gee
`§42.123(c).
`
`With respect to IPR2014-01122, the trial was instituted on January 21, 2015 ~ less than one
`month ago. (E Paper No. 20). fig 37 C.F.R. §42.123(a)(1). Trial was instituted on claims 9 and 21. gee
`Paper No. 20 at p. 21. Per §42.123 (a)(2), the attesting affidavit for the Hiroyuki Reference is relevant to claim
`9 of the ‘895 patent. & Corrected Petition (Paper No. 6) at pp. 17—25; Request For Rehearing. The attesting
`affidavit could not have been obtained earlier due to a mistaken belief that the attesting affidavit had already
`
`—1—
`
`

`

`been obtained (fl Motion To Submit Corrected Exhibit, Paper No, 17), and consideration of the attesting
`affidavit would be in the interests ofjustice because claim 9 is reasonably likely to be invalid based on the
`Hiroyuki Reference (fl Revised Petition at pp. 17-25). E §42.123(c).
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Steven F. Meyer
`
`Steven ‘F. Meyer
`Partner
`
`Locke Lord LLP
`
`3 World Financial Center, 20th Floor
`New York, New York 10281—2101
`(212) 415—8535 [Direct Dial}
`(212) 303-2754 [Fax]
`smeyerthockelordcom
`
`
`
`Atlanta 1 Austin | Boston | Chicago 1 Dallas | Hartford | Hong Kong | Houston 1 Istanbul [ London 1 Los Angeles |
`Miami | Morristown | New Orleans | New York | Orange County 1 Providence | Sacramento | San Francisco |
`Stamford | Tokyo [ Washington DC | West Palm Beach
`
`Locke Lord LLP and Edwards WiIdman Palmer LLP merged effective January 10, 2015. For more information
`visit wwwiockelordcom
`
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
`This e-mail and any attached files from Locke Lord LLP may contain information that is privileged,
`confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
`hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
`you received this e-mail by accident, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e—mail and all copies
`of it. We may scan and or monitor emails sent to and from our servers to ensure regulatory compliance to
`protect our clients and business.
`
`

`

`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e) and 37 CPR. §42.105(b), the undersigned
`hereby certifies that on February 20, 2015, a complete and entire copy of the
`foregoing MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED INSTITUTED Inter
`Partes Review was electronically served in its entirety on the Patent Owner of
`record
`(as
`agreed
`upon
`by
`counsel)
`at
`sbrown@hoveywilliams.com,
`mwalters@hoveywilliams.corn, and litigation@ hoveywilliarnseom.
`'
`
`Additionally, the undersigned certifies that on February 20, 2015, a complete
`and entire copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED
`INSTITUTED Inter Partes Review was electronically served on the Patent
`Owner’s beloW—listed counsel of record at
`jschwent@thompsoncoburn.com,
`djinkins@thompsoncoburn.com,
`and
`syoo@thompsoncoburn.com,
`in
`the
`co—pending litigation Nidec Motor Corporation v. Broad Ocean Motor LLC et al,
`Civil Action No. 4: l3—CV—01 895-]CH (ED. Mo), as agreed upon by the parties.
`
`Dated: February 20, 2015
`-
`
`/s/ Steven F. Meyer
`Steven F. Meyer (Reg. No. 35,613)
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`
`Three World Financial Center
`
`New York, New York 10281—2101
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners Zhongshan
`Broad Ocean Motor Co, Ltd;
`
`Broad Ocean Motor LLC; and
`
`Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC
`
`NY 78523 lv.l
`
`