IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00821
`Patent 8,532,641
`____________
`
`Before the Honorable KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`THEIR MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Abb Inc. v.Roy-G-Biv Corp.,
`Case IPR2013-00282, Paper 15 (Aug. 9, 2013) .............................................................. 2
`
`Amneal Pharms LLC v. Endo Pharms., Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-01365, Paper 13 (Feb. 4, 2015) .............................................................. 2
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd,
`Case IPR2012-00022, Paper 166 (Sept. 2, 2014) .................................................. 2, 3, 4
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd,
`Case IPR2013-00250, Paper 24 (Sept. 3, 2013) ............................................................. 2
`
`Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC. v. Gevo, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00581, Paper 8 (Oct. 14, 2014) .............................................................. 5
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co.,
`Case IPR2014-00628, Paper 21 at 11 (Oct. 20, 2014) ................................................... 5
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Endotach LLC.,
`Case IPR2014-00695, Paper 18 (Sept. 25, 2014) ........................................................... 5
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00109, Paper 15 (Feb. 25, 2013) ............................................................ 2
`
`Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel Networks LLC.,
`Case IPR2014-00950, Paper 12 (Oct. 22, 2014) ........................................................ 4-5
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC.,
`Case IPR2014-00209, Paper 36 (Sept. 9, 2014) ............................................................. 1
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC.,
`Case IPR2014-00407, Paper 27 (Sept. 9, 2014) ............................................................. 1
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC.,
`Case IPR2014-00407, Paper 29 (Oct. 9, 2014) ............................................................... 5
`
`Samsung Elec. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Tech., Lp,
`Case IPR2015-00118, Paper 14 (Jan. 28, 2015) ............................................................. 4
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Virginia Innovation Scis., Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00557, Paper 10 (June 13, 2014) ........................................................ 2, 3
`
`Skyhawke Techs. v. L&H Concepts,
`Case IPR2014-01485, Paper 13 (Mar. 20, 2015) ............................................................ 1
`
`Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Dev. Co. of the Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem,
`Case IPR2013-00327, Paper 15 (Sept. 24, 2013) ........................................................... 2
`
`Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00907, Paper 10 (Dec. 1, 2014) .............................................................. 5
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508, Paper 18 (Sept. 25, 2014) ....................................................... 1, 2
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508, Paper 20 (Sept. 25, 2014) ....................................................... 1, 2
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508, Paper 28 (Feb. 12, 2015) ........................................................ 1, 2
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508, Paper 31 (Feb. 12, 2015) ................................................... 1, 2, 4
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508, Paper 32 (Feb. 12, 2015) ................................................... 1, 2, 4
`
`Unilever, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Company,
`Case IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 (July 7, 2014) ............................................................... 5
`
`Zimmer Holdings, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-01080, Paper 17 (Oct. 31, 2014) ............................................................ 4
`
`ZTE Corp. v. Contentguard Holdings Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00454, Paper 13 (Sept. 25, 2013) ........................................................... 4
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 315 (c) ............................................................................................................................. 1, 2
`§ 316 (a)(11) .......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100 (c) ............................................................................................................................ 5
`
`H. R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................. 2
`
`157 Cog. Rec. S 1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) ..................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`PO’s Opposition (Pap. 8, “Opp.”) fails to address the clear reasons for joinder
`
`here, and the Board should exercise its discretion to grant joinder.
`
`I.
`
`ISSUE JOINDER IS PROPER
`
`PO’s current argument that “§ 315(c) does not permit a party to join a proceed-
`
`ing in which it is already a party” to allow for joinder of issues (Opp. 2) should be re-
`
`jected, as it flies in the face of the statute, PO’s own prior admission that issue joinder is
`
`appropriate, and the decisions of multiple Board panels—including the recent ex-
`
`panded panel decision on rehearing in IPR2014-508, Pap. 28 (“Target II”)—that issue
`
`joinder under § 315(c) is entirely proper. See also Target II, Paps. 31, 32. Indeed, in re-
`
`lated proceedings between the same parties before this Board, PO consented to Peti-
`
`tioners’ motion for joinder under § 315(c), agreeing that issue joinder was proper
`
`there. See IPR2014-407, Pap. 18 at 1. The Board, granting joinder, exercised its discre-
`
`tion to “join and consolidate the proceedings in their entirety,” finding that
`
`“[s]ubstantively, [the proceedings] involve[d] the same patent, the same claims, the
`
`same parties, and overlapping prior art references.” Id., Pap. 27; see also IPR2014-209,
`
`Pap. 36. The Board should again exercise its discretion to grant joinder here, where
`
`PO does not dispute these proceedings involve the same patent, parties, and counsel,
`
`the same expert for Petitioners, and a significant overlap in the asserted prior art.
`
`While PO cites Skyhawke Techs. v. L&H Concepts, IPR2014-1485, Pap. 13 (Opp.
`
`3), to suggest issue joinder is forbidden under § 315(c), that decision denied joinder
`
`relying on the now-reversed Target I decision. See id. (citing IPR2014-508, Paps. 18, 20, rev’d on
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`reh’g by Target II). In Target II, an expanded panel concluded on rehearing that § 315(c)
`
`permits a party to join a proceeding in which it is already a party, and reversed the contra-
`
`ry Target I decision (relied on in PO’s cited Skyhawke decision) as “based on an errone-
`
`ously narrow interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).” IPR2014-508, Pap. 28 at 17; see also
`
`Paps. 31, 32. This conclusion in Target II is consistent with numerous other decisions
`
`granting issue joinder under § 315(c), including, e.g., IPR2013-109, Pap. 15; IPR2013-
`
`282, Pap. 15; IPR2013-327, Pap 15; IPR2014-557, Pap. 10; IPR2013-250, Pap. 24;
`
`IPR2012-22, Pap. 166; IPR2014-1365, Pap. 13. And the majority in Target II (uncited
`
`by PO) correctly rejected the very same arguments PO urges here. See IPR2014-508,
`
`Pap. 28 at 7 (rejecting argument (Opp. 2-3) that statute’s plain language precludes is-
`
`sue joinder), 10 (rejecting argument (Opp. 3-4) that reference in Final Committee Re-
`
`port to joining “other petitioners” precludes issue joinder), 14-15 (rejecting argument
`
`(Opp. 4) that allowing issue joinder renders § 315(d) superfluous), and 15-16 (rejecting
`
`argument (Opp. 5) that joinder should be precluded to prevent “harassment” of PO).
`
`II. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WARRANT JOINDER
`Contrary to PO’s arguments (Opp. 6), the circumstances here warrant joinder,
`
`especially in view of the AIA’s purpose of “reducing unwarranted litigation costs,” “improv-
`
`ing patent quality and providing a more efficient system for challenging patents that should not have
`
`issued.” H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 39-40 (2011); see also, e.g., Final Rule, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,680 (Aug. 14, 2012). The ‘641 patent is one of 14 related patents, of which
`
`PO has asserted 6 patents and 50 claims against Petitioners. Thus, the factor of “whether
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`large numbers of patents or claims are alleged to be infringed by one or more of the
`
`defendants” weighs strongly in favor of joinder.1 157 Cong. Rec. S 1376 (daily ed. Mar.
`
`8, 2011). Further, it is in the public interest for the Board to rule on the invalidity of a
`
`patent that should never have issued, and PO continues to actively litigate the ‘641
`
`and other related patents against numerous other non-parties. See Pap. 2 at 6-7. It
`
`would also waste both judicial resources and litigation costs for this Board to consider,
`
`e.g., the patentability of already-instituted independent claim 8 in the context of certain
`
`prior art, but not dependent claims 9 and 10 (and nearly identical claims 1-3 & 5-7) in
`
`view of that same art. Ariosa, IPR2012-22, Pap. 166 at 21-22. Rather than have these
`
`claims potentially return to district court, both the public and private interests are bet-
`
`ter served by having the Board fully consider invalidity of the ‘641 claims. Id.;
`
`IPR2014-557, Pap. 10 at 18 (“the minimal additional amount of work required … is
`
`strongly outweighed by the public interest in having consistency of outcome concern-
`
`ing similar sets of claimed subject matter and prior art.”)
`
`PO is wrong that the “asserted grounds are merely duplicative of the grounds
`
`already presented by Petitioners” (Opp. 10).2 This Petition involves new references
`
`(Ushiroda & Bork) not yet considered by the Board that explicitly address the Board’s
`
`concern over the “physical interface” of Ito’s PHS telephone: Ushiroda expressly dis-
`
`1 This also belies PO’s complaints (Opp. 13) about the number of IPRs it faces.
`
`2 Nor, for the same reasons, could Petitioners’ newly identified art have been
`
`addressed in rehearing, as PO erroneously suggests (Opp. 7).
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`closes a PHS telephone with a “physical interface” and “the advantage of providing a port-
`
`able wireless communication device capable of interconnecting an external data terminal and a net-
`
`work for a long period of time without using a charger;” and Bork discloses other advantages
`
`of a “physical interface.” See Pap. 2 at 3-4, 24-27. In fact, the Board has granted joinder
`
`in these very circumstances—where new arguments were raised in view of a newly
`
`cited reference, and there was substantial overlap in the remaining cited art. See Target
`
`II, Pap. 31 at 2, Pap. 32; IPR2012-22, Pap. 166 at 21-22. And contrary to PO’s unsup-
`
`ported suggestion that the grounds herein are “duplicative” (Opp. 10), the Board has
`
`already found a number of distinct grounds of obviousness (e.g., with respect to claim
`
`8 in IPR2014-1181, -1182, and -1184) warranted institution, and the grounds present-
`
`ed here are likewise not duplicative of any instituted ground. Further, joinder will not
`
`“tie up” the Board’s resources (cf. Opp. 7): the Petition is narrowly tailored to address
`
`the concern over “physical interface” (-1181, Pap. 10 at 10-12). Similar to Ariosa, join-
`
`ing this proceeding with -1181 will only require consideration of two more references.
`
`Ushiroda is only 5 pages long and the Board and PO are familiar with Bork from re-
`
`lated proceedings. Thus joinder will not significantly increase the complexity of brief-
`
`ing or discovery, and efficiencies can be maintained with minimal additional effort.
`
`Further, Petitioners’ motion is not an improper “second bite at the apple”
`
`(Opp. 5-10), and the decisions PO cites are inapposite. In ZTE (IPR2013-454, Pap.
`
`13), the first proceeding had been terminated and could no longer be joined. In Sam-
`
`sung (IPR2015-118, Pap. 14 at 6-7), Zimmer (IPR2014-1080, Pap. 17 at 5), and Reloaded
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`(IPR2014-950, Pap. 12 at 5), no new art was presented. In Butamax (IPR2014-581,
`
`Pap. 8 at 12), Conopco (IPR2014-628, Pap. 21 at 11), Standard Innov., (IPR2014-907, Pap.
`
`10 at 4-7), and Unilever (IPR2014-506, Pap. 17 at 6), petitioners did not contend that
`
`they were not previously aware of the cited art. And in Medtronic (IPR2014-695, Pap.
`
`18 at 6-8), petitioner alleged a “changed” claim construction that the Board found pe-
`
`titioner had access to before the first petition was filed. Moreover, as represented to
`
`the Board by Petitioners’ undersigned counsel, Ushiroda was not known to Petition-
`
`ers before the filing of the original petition.3 It was located, instead, on Feb. 19, 2015–
`
`after the Board’s Institution Decision. There is no gamesmanship here: petitioners seek only
`
`a full and fair adjudication of validity within the framework created by Congress.
`
`III. A JOINED PROCEEDING CAN BE TIMELY COMPLETED
`In light of Order 7, Petitioners attach an alternative proposed schedule reach-
`
`ing a Dec. 16, 2015 Due Date for Oral Argument (moved by seven weeks from Oct.
`
`28, 2015), which provides for a just and speedy resolution of both petitions and timely
`
`completion of both joined proceedings consistent with § 316(a)(11) and § 42.100(c).
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that the Board grant joinder.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:/J. Steven Baughman/
`J. Steven Baughman (Lead Counsel)
`
`
`3 Despite PO’s suggestion that no evidence was provided (Opp. 13), such repre-
`
`
`
`
`
`April 6, 2015
`
`
`Gabrielle E. Higgins (Backup Counsel)
`
`
`sentations are regularly accepted by the Board. See, e.g., IPR2014-407, Pap. 29 at 2.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`PETITIONERS’ REVISED PROPOSED SCHEDULE
`
`Deadline
`
`Due Date 1 (IPR2014-
`01181)
`Patent owner’s response to
`the petition
`
`Patent owner’s motion to
`amend the patent
`(IPR2015-00821) Patent
`owner’s preliminary response
`(IPR2015-00821) Decision
`to institute and decision on
`motion for joinder (suggest-
`ed)
`
`Current Schedule in
`IPR2014-01181
`April 30, 2015
`
`Petitioner’s Revised Pro-
`posal for Joined Proceeding
`April 30, 2015 (SAME)
`
`--
`
`--
`
`June 13, 2015 (SAME)
`
`July 24, 2015
`
`
` Patent Owner has not offered a proposed schedule in its Opposition. Petitioners
`
`further reiterate their offer to discuss with Patent Owner any further adjustments of
`
`the schedule, or adjustments as determined by the Board to be appropriate or neces-
`
`sary to promote efficient resolution of this case, including extension of the schedule
`
`beyond the proposed date of Dec. 16, 2015 for an Oral Hearing. See, e.g., IPR2012-
`
`22/IPR2013-250; IPR2012-26/IPR2013-109; IPR2013-531/IPR2014-508. Petitioners
`
`are also open to extending Due Date 1 in IPR2014-01181 to the same proposed dead-
`
`line for Due Date 1A if the Board determines that it would be efficient to have a sin-
`
`gle unified schedule for both proceedings that provides for a common Patent Own-
`
`er’s Response (and any deposition of Petitioners’ expert) and Petitioners’ Reply.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Deadline
`
`Due Date 1A (IPR2015-
`00821)
`Patent owner’s supplemental
`response
`Patent owner’s motion to
`amend to address grounds
`raised in IPR2015-00821
`Due Date 2 (IPR2014-01181
`& IPR2015-00821)
`Petitioner’s reply to patent
`owner’s response to petition
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to
`motion to amend
`Due Date 3 (IPR2014-01181
`& IPR2015-00821)
`Patent owner’s reply to peti-
`tioner’s opposition to motion
`to amend
`Due Date 4 (IPR2014-01181
`& IPR2015-00821)
`Motion for observation re-
`garding cross-examination of
`reply witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`Due Date 5 (IPR2014-01181
`& IPR2015-00821)
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to ex-
`clude
`Due Date 6 (IPR2014-01181
`& IPR2015-00821)
`Reply to opposition to mo-
`tion to exclude
`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`Current Schedule in
`Petitioner’s Revised Pro-
`IPR2014-01181
`posal for Joined Proceeding
`--
`September 4, 2015
`
`July 30, 2015
`
`October 16, 2015
`
`August 31, 2015
`
`November 6, 2015
`
`September 21, 2015
`
`November 20, 2015
`
`October 5, 2015
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`October 13, 2015
`
`December 9, 2015
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`Current Schedule in
`Petitioner’s Revised Pro-
`IPR2014-01181
`posal for Joined Proceeding
`October 28, 2015
`December 16, 2015
`
`Deadline
`
`Due Date 7 (IPR2014-01181
`& IPR2015-00821)
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00821
`United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is certified that a copy of PETITIONERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`
`THEIR MOTION FOR JOINDER has been served in its entirety by causing the
`
`aforementioned document to be electronically mailed, pursuant to the Petitioners’ and
`
`Patent Owner’s agreement, the following attorneys of record for the Patent Owner
`
`listed below:
`
`
`
`Ryan M. Schultz
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
`800 LaSalle Ave.
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Thomas R. DeSimone
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree St., Suite 2200
`Atlanta, CA 30309
`TRDeSimone@rkmc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Kathryn N. Hong
`Kathryn N. Hong
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Dated: April 6, 2015