`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`IPR2015-00820
`
`PATENT 8,532,641 B2
`
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) AND REQUEST FOR
`SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME FOR PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`First, Petitioners’ motion is procedurally improper because 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`does not permit a party to join a proceeding in which it is already a party. Because
`
`joinder is not procedurally proper, the Petition should be denied because Petitioners
`
`filed the Petition more than one year after they were served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ’641 patent, the patent sought to be reviewed in the Petition.
`
`Second, and if the substantive merits of the motion are considered, the motion
`
`for joinder is improper because it is nothing more than a request for reconsideration
`
`of substantially the same arguments that the Board has already rejected. The Board
`
`has repeatedly denied joinder under similar circumstances where a petitioner used the
`
`Board’s institution decision as a roadmap for successive petitions. Finally, joinder
`
`would negatively impact the existing schedule of three other consolidated proceedings
`
`examining the ’641 patent and would unduly prejudice the Patent Owner. Therefore,
`
`the motion for joinder should be denied.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`The Board has discretion to deny joinder of a party to an inter partes review
`
`proceeding. § 315. Petitioners have the burden to show that they are entitled to
`
`joinder. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). When exercising the discretion to grant or deny joinder,
`
`the Board should be mindful that patent trial regulations must “be construed to secure
`
`the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” § 42.1(b). A motion
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`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 of the existing proceeding; and (4)
`
`address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See, e.g., Kyocera Corp.
`
`v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (Apr. 24, 2013).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioners’ representation that the newly asserted
`
`reference cures any of the deficiencies identified by the Board in the prior institution
`
`decisions. (Paper 3 at 4-5). Further, Patent Owner disputes that Petitioners were not
`
`aware of the new reference, Hu, before filing multiple petitions challenging the ’641
`
`patent in IPR2014-01181, IPR2014-01182, and IPR2014-01184. Id. at 3.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Petitioners’ motion for joinder is procedurally defective
`Petitioners’ motion is procedurally defective because 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does not
`
`permit a party to join a proceeding in which it is already a party. As a consequence,
`
`the Petition is barred by the one-year bar under § 315(b) because Petitioners were
`
`served with a complaint for infringement more than a year before filing the Petition.
`
`In pertinent part, § 315(c) provides: “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)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`“Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, [the statute’s plain]
`
`language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Lee, 2015 U.S.
`
`App. LEXIS 2828, 10 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2015) (citing Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v.
`
`GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980)). The meaning of this statute is
`
`unambiguous, “a party” may be joined to a proceeding—not “a petition.” See Skyhawk
`
`Techs., LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC, IPR2014-01485, Paper 13 at 3-4 (March 21, 2015)
`
`(Denying joinder because “[a] person cannot be joined as a party to a proceeding in
`
`which it is already a party. The statute does not refer to the joining of a petition or
`
`new patentability challenges presented herein, nor does the statute refer to the joining
`
`of a new issue.”). Because Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. are already parties to IPR2014-01181, -1182, and -1184, they cannot be
`
`joined as parties to those proceedings. In other words, it is illogical and contrary to
`
`the plain language of the statute to join one’s self to something that one is already a
`
`party to.
`
`Statutory language must be interpreted to carry out the legislature’s intent. A
`
`Committee Report is “the authoritative source for finding the Legislature’s intent.”
`
`Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 76 (1984). “Committee Reports are ‘more
`
`authoritative’ than comments from the floor.” Id. (citing United States v. O’Brien, 391
`
`U.S. 367, 385 (1968); Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 169, 187 (1969)). Here, the legislative
`
`history supports the plain meaning interpretation that “a party” does not mean a
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`petition or new argument such that “a party” cannot be joined to a proceeding in
`
`which it is already “a party.” The Final Committee Report stated that under § 315(c)
`
`and § 325(c), “[t]he Director may allow other petitioners to join an inter partes or post-
`
`grant review.” H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1 at 76 (2011) (emphasis added). In
`
`SkyHawke, the Board relied on this very statement from the Report for determining
`
`that “a party” in § 315(c) cannot be one who is already a party to the other
`
`proceeding. IPR2014-01485, Paper 13 at 4. This statement clearly evidences the
`
`legislature’s intent for § 315(c) to only allow “a party” to be joined to a proceeding,
`
`and not the same petitioner who is already a party.
`
`Interpreting “a party” to mean a petition or new argument would violate the
`
`cardinal canon of statutory construction to avoid surplusage. “[A] statute ought, upon
`
`the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word
`
`shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.” Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001)
`
`(citing Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U.S. 112, 115 (1879); Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter,
`
`Cmtys. for Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 698 (1995)). Section 315(d) grants the Board
`
`authority to “determine the manner in which the inter partes review or other
`
`proceeding or matter may proceed,” including consolidation of proceedings.
`
`Interpreting § 315(c) to provide the same function as § 315(d), joining or
`
`consolidating petitions involving the same party, renders § 315(c) unnecessary and
`
`redundant. Therefore, such a construction should be avoided.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
` Interpreting § 315(c) to provide joinder of new petitions or issues opens a
`
`loophole for Petitioners to pursue successive attempts at invalidating a patent. The
`
`result allows serial harassment of patent owners, because a petitioner could simply
`
`substitute prior art references or correct arguments rejected by the Board in earlier
`
`petitions. Inter partes review proceedings were not intended to provide petitioners with
`
`a trial-and-error approach to invalidating a patent. Instead, it was intended to be a
`
`limited and cost-effective means for challenging the validity of a patent.
`
`Section 315(b) bars institution of an inter partes review when the petition is filed
`
`more than one year after the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the patent. The Petition was filed on February 27, 2015, more than
`
`one year after Petitioners were served with a complaint for infringement of the ’641
`
`patent, which Petitioners readily admit. (Paper 7 at 7). Once a party is time barred
`
`under § 315(b), it is always time barred. Only a new party seeking to join a proceeding
`
`is not time barred under § 315(b), because the one-year bar does not apply to a
`
`request for joinder under § 315(c). Petitioners’ motion for joinder should be denied
`
`because the Petition is barred under § 315(b).
`
`B. Even if joinder were procedurally permissible under the statue,
`Petitioners should not be given a “second bite at the apple”
`
`Petitioners should not be joined, even if Board determines that joinder is
`
`permissible under the statute, because “[a] petitioner is not entitled to unlimited
`
`challenges against a patent.” Zimmer Holdings et al. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innov., IPR2014-
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`01080, Paper 17 at 5 (Oct. 31, 2014). Only certain extraordinary circumstances merit
`
`giving a petitioner a second chance. For example, in Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation,
`
`Ltd., the Board granted joinder when a new product was launched leading to a threat
`
`of new assertions of infringement. IPR2013-00250, Paper 25 at 2, 4 (Sept. 8, 2013).
`
`The Board also found that joinder may be warranted where the patent owner had
`
`asserted additional claims against the petitioner in concurrent district court litigation
`
`after the one-year bar had taken effect, and the patent owner did not oppose joinder.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109, Paper 15 at 3 (Feb. 25, 2014). This
`
`case does not involve circumstances that merit a second chance for Petitioners.
`
`The motion for joinder shows that Petitioners used the institution decision in
`
`IPR2014-01184 as a roadmap to correct deficient arguments and prior art
`
`combinations according to the Board’s analysis of the earlier petition. For example,
`
`Petitioners’ motion states:
`
`In its January 30, 2015 Institution Decision, however, the
`Board determined that Petitioners had not shown it was
`more
`likely
`than not
`that
`they would prevail
`in
`demonstrating that Ohmura in combination with Ahn,
`Nokia, and/or Galensky rendered obvious claims 1-3, 5-7,
`9-10 and 12, finding that “Petitioner has not explained
`sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`found it ‘beneficial’ or ‘advantageous’ to modify Ohmura’s
`portable audio apparatus to include Internet connectivity
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`over a cellular connection.” See IPR2014-01184, Paper 10
`at 13. While Petitioners respectfully disagree, the Hu
`reference (Ex. 1301) relied on in the new Petition resolves
`any concerns that the Board had with respect to Ohmura.
`The Hu reference was not previously known to Petitioners
`or presented to the Board in the prior petitions and
`contains explicit disclosure of the teachings that the Board
`found absent from
`the previously-cited art.
`.
`.
`.
`Accordingly, Hu provides the teaching in the art that the
`Board found to be lacking from Ohmura.
`
`(Paper 3 at 4-5). Petitioners’ failure to assert successful combinations of prior art
`
`should not open the door to another petition with the benefits of hindsight and the
`
`Board’s analysis from previous institution decisions. “Permitting second chances in
`
`cases like this one ties up the Board’s limited resources.” Zimmer Holdings et al. v.
`
`Bonutti Skeletal Innov., IPR2014-01080, Paper 17 at 6 (Oct. 31, 2014); see also ZTE
`
`Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 at 5-6 (Sept. 25, 2013)
`
`(“The Board is concerned about encouraging, unnecessarily, the filing of petitions
`
`which are partially inadequate.”). The correct avenue for challenging the Board’s
`
`decision on institution is a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), not filing
`
`a new petition and motion for joinder. Petitioners did not file such request for
`
`rehearing because the Board properly rejected the grounds in IPR2014-01184.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`The Board has repeatedly denied joinder under similar circumstances where a
`
`new petition represented a “second bite at the apple.” Indeed, these very Petitioners
`
`represented by the same counsel raised this argument in another proceeding, and the
`
`motion for joinder was properly denied. See, Samsung Electronics Co. v. Rembrandt
`
`Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2015-00118, Paper 14 at 6-7 (denying joinder because the
`
`petition “presents merely ‘the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments,’”
`
`and explaining that “[a] petitioner is not entitled to multiple challenges against a
`
`patent”); see also Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. Endotach LLC., IPR2014-00695, Paper 18 at 3
`
`(Sept. 25, 2014) (“This case represents a ‘second bite at the apple’ for Petitioner, who
`
`has received the benefit of seeing our Decision to Institute in the prior case involving
`
`the same parties and patent claims.”); Butamax Advanced Biofuels v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00581, Paper 8 at 12-13 (Oct. 14, 2014) (“[T]the obviousness grounds asserted in the
`
`present Petition are expressly intended to squarely address[] the alleged deficiencies
`
`identified by the Board in the 539 IPR. In other words, the four obviousness grounds
`
`are ‘second bites at the apple,’ which use our prior decision to as a roadmap to
`
`remedy Butamax’s prior, deficient challenge.”); Zimmer Holdings et al. v. Bonutti Skeletal
`
`Innov., IPR2014-01080, Paper 17 at 4 (Oct. 31, 2014) (“To bolster the prior reasoning
`
`that we deemed insufficient, Petitioner, in this proceeding, ‘ha[s] more fully articulated
`
`the reasons why it would have been obvious to combine the references.’ . . . We do
`
`not reach the merits of Petitioner’s additional reasoning. … Petitioner is requesting,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`essentially, a second chance to address claim 43.”); ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings,
`
`IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 at 6 (Sept. 25, 2013) (“A decision to institute review on
`
`some claims should not act as an entry ticket, and a how-to guide, for the same
`
`Petitioner who filed an unsuccessful joinder motion, and is outside of the one-year
`
`statutory period, for filing a second petition to challenge those claims which it
`
`unsuccessfully challenged in the first petition.”); Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel Networks
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00950, Paper 12 at 4-5 (October 22, 2014) (“Petitioner seeks a ‘second
`
`bite of the apple’” and “has not raised any grounds of unpatentability that could not
`
`have been raised when filing the [earlier] Petition”); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo,
`
`Inc., IPR2014-00907, Paper 10 (Dec. 1, 2014); Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. Norred, IPR2014-
`
`00695, Paper 18 at 3 (Sept. 25, 2014).
`
`Under the same line of reasoning, the Board has denied institution under §
`
`325(d) where “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously
`
`were presented to the Office.” See e.g., Unilever Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2014-
`
`00506, Paper 17 at 6-8 (July 7, 2014) (“[W]e are persuaded that the instant Petition
`
`uses our prior Decision on Institution to bolster challenges that were advanced,
`
`unsuccessfully, in the [earlier] Petition. . . . we already have considered the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments in connection with the challenged
`
`claims.”); Conopco, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble, IPR2014-00628, Paper 21 at 11 (Oct. 20,
`
`2014) (denying institution because “the interests of fairness, economy, and efficiency
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`support declining review—a result that discourages the filing of a first petition that
`
`holds back prior art for use in successive attacks should the first petition be denied.”).
`
`The same result should occur here, namely denial of the motion.
`
`Just like the decisions denying joinder cited above, the Petition is simply a redo
`
`for Petitioners. Petitioners originally filed three petitions challenging the validity of the
`
`’641 patent in IPR2014-01181, IPR2014-01182, and IPR2014-01184. The Board has
`
`already instituted inter partes review on various grounds advanced by Petitioners,
`
`including all of the claims challenged in this new Petition. Petitioners admit that the
`
`Petition involves the same patent, the same parties, the same counsel, overlapping
`
`prior art references including the exact same secondary prior art references, and the
`
`same expert for Petitioners as in the already-instituted IPR2014-01184. (See Paper 3.)
`
`There are only two differences between the new Petition and the earlier petition in
`
`IPR2014-01184: (1) Petitioners replace Ohmura with Hu as the primary references;
`
`and (2) the only claims not challenged in the Petition are those that the Board already
`
`instituted review of in IPR2014-01184. The asserted grounds are merely duplicative of
`
`the grounds already presented by Petitioners. In IPR2014-01184, Petitioners set forth
`
`various combinations of Ohmura, Ahn, Nokia, and Galensky. Now they seek another
`
`shot at the same arguments, substituting the Hu references. The already instituted
`
`grounds include:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`References
`
`Basis Claims
`Challenged
`8, 11, 13, 14
`12
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Instituted
`Proceeding
`IPR2014-01181
`IPR2014-01181
`
`IPR2014-01182
`IPR2014-01182
`
`IPR2014-01182
`IPR2014-01182
`
`IPR2014-01184
`IPR2014-01184
`
`Ito, Haartsen, Nokia, and Rydbeck
`Ito, Haartsen, Nokia, Rydbeck and
`Galenskey
`Abecassis, Chennakeshu, and Herrod § 103
`Abecassis, Chennakeshu, Herrod,
`§ 103
`and Galensky
`Abecassis and Chennakeshu
`Abecassis, Chennakeshu, and
`Galensky
`Ohmura and Ahn
`Ohmura, Ahn, and Nokia
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`1-3, 5, 9, 10, 14
`6, 7
`
`8, 11, 13
`12
`
`8, 11
`13, 14
`
`Review of every challenged claim has been instituted on some ground. But now
`
`Petitioners seek to pile on the following additional grounds:
`
`New Petitions
`
`References
`
`IPR2015-00820
`IPR2015-00820
`IPR2015-00820
`IPR2015-00820
`IPR2015-00820
`IPR2015-00820
`
`IPR2015-00820
`IPR2015-00821
`IPR2015-00821
`
`IPR2015-00821
`
`IPR2015-00821
`
`IPR2015-00821
`
`
`
`Hu, Ahn, and POSITA
`Hu, Ahn, and Nokia
`Hu, Ahn, Nokia, and POSITA
`Hu, Ahn, Galensky, and POSITA
`Hu, Ahn, Galensky, and Nokia
`Hu, Ahn, Galensky, Nokia, and
`POSITA
`Hu, Ahn, and Galensky
`Ito, Haartsen, Ushiroda, and Bork
`Ito, Haartsen, Nokia, Ushiroda, and
`Bork
`Ito, Haartsen, Rydbeck, Ushiroda, and
`Bork
`Ito, Haartsen, Nokia, Rydbeck,
`Ushiroda, and Bork
`Ito, Haartsen, Galensky, Ushiroda,
`and Bork
`
`11
`
`Basis Claims
`Challenged
`1-3, 5, 9
`1-3, 5, 9, 10
`1-3, 5, 9, 10
`7, 12
`6, 7, 12
`6, 7, 12
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`12
`1, 2, 5, 9
`1-3, 5, 9, 10
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 2, 5, 9
`
`§ 103
`
`1-3, 5, 9, 10
`
`§ 103
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`IPR2015-00821
`
`IPR2015-00821
`
`IPR2015-00821
`
`Ito, Haartsen, Nokia, Galensky,
`Ushiroda, and Bork
`Ito, Haartsen, Rydbeck, Galensky,
`Ushiroda, and Bork
`Ito, Haartsen, Nokia, Rydbeck,
`Galensky, Ushiroda, and Bork
`
`§ 103
`
`6, 7
`
`§ 103
`
`7
`
`§ 103
`
`6, 7
`
`The motion for joinder states that, “Petitioners were not aware of the Hu
`
`reference at the time the earlier IPR2014-01184 petition was filed, and instead located
`
`that reference only after the institution decision in IPR2014-01184.” (Paper 3 at 3).
`
`Petitioners have not submitted any evidence in support of this assertion. Hu is an
`
`easily located and accessible published U.S. patent application. There simply is no
`
`reasonable explanation for why Petitioners could not have found the Hu reference
`
`earlier and made these same arguments in earlier petitions with a search of the prior
`
`art. Indeed, Petitioners do not offer any evidence or explanation as to when they
`
`began searching for this reference or why the reference was not previously available.
`
`As such, the motion must be denied.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder would unduly prejudice Patent Owner and negatively impact
`the existing trial schedule
`
`Joining the Petition to the three ongoing and already consolidated proceedings
`
`would deprive Patent Owner of a “just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” and
`
`further complicate the proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Petitioners have filed a
`
`total of nine petitions challenging three of Patent Owner’s patents. Along with the
`
`Petition subject to this motion, Petitioners have also filed another new petition
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`challenging claims of the ’641 patent in IPR2015-00821, and seek to join that petition
`
`to IPR2014-01181. Congress described its intention for efficient administration of
`
`inter partes review proceedings, explaining:
`
`While this amendment is intended to remove current
`disincentives to current administrative processes, the
`changes made by it are not to be used as tools for
`harassment or a means to prevent market entry through
`repeated litigation and administrative attacks on the validity
`of a patent. Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the
`section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to
`litigation.
`
`See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1, at 48 (2011). “Allowing similar, serial challenges to the
`
`same patent, by the same petitioner, risks harassment of patent owners and frustration
`
`of Congress’s intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.” Butamax
`
`Advanced Biofuels v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2014-00581, Paper 8 at 13 (Oct. 14, 2014). Joinder of
`
`the Petition would defeat the purpose of inter partes review to provide a just, speedy,
`
`and inexpensive resolution to this validity dispute.
`
`Petitioners self-servingly suggest a shortened response period for Patent Owner
`
`to file a preliminary response. While the new reference and arguments are
`
`substantially similar to those previously presented by Petitioners, this is no reason to
`
`procedurally prejudice the Patent Owner, as Patent Owner may present new
`
`arguments as to why the references fail beyond those already accepted by the Board.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`Patent Owner is entitled to an adequate period of time to analyze the Petition and
`
`formulate a sufficient response to protect its valuable patent rights.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioners’ proposed schedule for joined proceedings would
`
`unfairly prejudice the Patent Owner because Patent Owner would bear the brunt of a
`
`compressed schedule. Petitioners have already substantially completed briefing for
`
`these proceedings by submitting the Petition. Patent Owner on the other hand still
`
`needs adequate time to analyze and brief the issues presented in the Petition. The
`
`suggested schedule unavoidably complicates the already consolidated proceedings, and
`
`joinder would necessarily cause delay and prejudice the Patent Owner.
`
`Moreover, Petitioners ignore the increase in complexities regarding briefing and
`
`discovery if the Petition is joined to ongoing proceeding. Petitioners’ reply brief is due
`
`April 6, 2015. It is unclear when the Board will be able to rule on this Motion. There
`
`will likely be only 2-3 weeks between the decision on joinder and the April 30, 2015
`
`due date for the Patent Owner’s Response in IPR2014-01184. By that time, Patent
`
`Owner will have completed all discovery in IPR2014-01184, including depositions of
`
`Petitioners’ declarants. If the Petition is joined, the parties will have to expend
`
`additional time and resources to conduct discovery related to this improper Petition
`
`such that there is simply no simplification of briefing or discovery that will be
`
`achieved. Thus, the motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners’ Motion to For Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c) And 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) And Request For Shortened Response Time for
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response should be denied.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 1, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Ryan Schultz /
`
`Registration No. 65,143
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00820
` Patent 8,532,641 B2
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 1, 2015, a copy of this OPPOSITION TO
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b) AND REQUEST FOR SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME FOR
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE has been served in its entirety
`by e-mail on Petitioners:
`
`For Samsung petitioners:
`
`Steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`
`Gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`SamsungIPRService@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`Dated: April 1, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Thomas R. DeSimone /
` Registration No. 60,755
` Robins Kaplan LLP
` One Atlantic Center
` 1201 West Peachtree Street
` Suite 2200
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3453
`
`
`
`16
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
