`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`Oracle Corporation and
`Dot Hill Systems Corp.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2015-_______
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035
`
`____________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`CROSSROADS EXHIBIT
`Oracle Corp. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-008(cid:1009)(cid:1008)
`
`2153
`
`1 of 8
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners Oracle Corporation and Dot Hill Systems Corporation respectfully
`
`request joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) of the above-
`
`captioned inter partes review with Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corporation v. Crossroads
`
`Systems, Inc., IPR2014-01226. This motion is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and
`
`42.122(b) because it is filed within one month of the date on which the -01226 case
`
`was instituted.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1. Petitioners were served with complaints asserting infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,425,035 more than one year before filing the petition in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding.
`
`2. The above-captioned inter partes review presents challenges which are
`
`identical to those on which trial was instituted in IPR2014-01226. The petition in the
`
`instant case copies verbatim the challenges set forth in the petition in IPR2014-01226.
`
`3. The above-captioned inter partes review relies on the same expert
`
`declaration offered in support of IPR2014-01226. Both petitions rely upon the
`
`declaration of Andrew Hospodor, Ph.D dated September 5, 2014. Ex. 1003 (in both
`
`cases).
`
`4. Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corporation, the petitioners in
`
`IPR2014-01226, do not oppose this motion for joinder. Cisco and Quantum have
`
`consented to the joinder in part due to the conditions outlined below, to which
`
`
`
`1
`
`2 of 8
`
`
`
`Petitioners have agreed.
`
`5. Petitioners have agreed that Cisco and Quantum shall remain in
`
`control of the joined proceedings. Petitioners have agreed to not materially
`
`participate in the joined proceedings unless and until the parties to IPR2014-01226 are
`
`dismissed from the joined proceedings or elect to transfer control to Petitioners, as
`
`may occur in the event of settlement or advanced settlement negotiations. In the
`
`event either of the foregoing events occur, Petitioners intend to “step into the shoes”
`
`of Cisco and Quantum and continue to prosecute the joined proceedings.
`
`6. Petitioners have agreed to retain Dr. Hospodor only if the foregoing
`
`contingency occurs. In the meantime, Dr. Hospodor will be solely retained by Cisco
`
`and Quantum.
`
`7. For avoidance of doubt, the foregoing is not intended to circumscribe
`
`any right Petitioners may have to participate in any appeal from the joined proceeding.
`
`The foregoing is also not intended to foreclose the possibility that Petitioners may
`
`request permission to materially participate in these proceedings if the circumstances
`
`change in a manner that warrants such participation. Lastly, the foregoing is not
`
`intended to foreclose communication among Cisco, Quantum and Petitioners
`
`concerning the substantive or procedural issues in the joined proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`3 of 8
`
`
`
`III. GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A motion for joinder may be filed within one month after institution of a trial.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The AIA permits joinder of parties in like review proceedings.
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder of inter partes review proceedings is 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c), which provides:
`(c) JOINDER.—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 that the
`Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the
`expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the
`institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) bars institution of a petition for inter partes review when the
`
`petition is filed more than one year after the petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party-in
`
`interest or privy) is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). However, the one-year time bar does not apply
`
`to a request for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (final sentence) (“[t]he time limitation set
`
`forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under
`
`subsection (c)”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant joinder is
`
`discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). When exercising that
`
`discretion, the Board is mindful that patent trial regulations, including the rules for
`
`
`
`3
`
`4 of 8
`
`
`
`joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
`
`every proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As indicated in the legislative history, the
`
`Board will determine whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into
`
`account the particular facts of each case. See 157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8,
`
`2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (when determining whether and when to allow joinder,
`
`the Office may consider factors including the breadth or unusualness of the claim
`
`scope, claim construction issues, and consent of the patent owner).
`
`That being said, the legislative history suggests that the joinder would be
`
`granted as a matter of right where the later petitioner presents the identical grounds of
`
`unpatentability. See 157 CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of
`
`Sen. Kyl) (“The Office anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of right - if an inter
`
`partes review is instituted on the basis of a petition, for example, a party that files an
`
`identical petition will be joined to that proceeding, and thus allowed to file its own
`
`briefs and make its own arguments.”) (emphasis added).
`
`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) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be
`
`simplified. Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., Case IPR2013-00385, Paper No.
`
`
`
`4
`
`5 of 8
`
`
`
`17 (July 29, 2013) at 4.
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Given the identity of the challenges and Petitioners’ agreement to not
`
`materially participate in the joined proceeding absent the affirmative decision of Cisco
`
`and Quantum to be dismissed from the proceedings or transfer control to Petitioners,
`
`the grant of the instant motion for joinder should have no impact on the trial
`
`schedule and would not create any meaningful additional burden on Patent Owner.
`
`The grounds set forth in the petition are identical. The petition in the above-
`
`captioned case sets forth verbatim the same challenges as the petition in IPR2014-
`
`01226.
`
`As set forth above, Petitioners do not intend to file separate papers or conduct
`
`separate cross examinations of any witnesses. Cisco and Quantum will remain in sole
`
`control of the review proceeding until such time as they elect to be dismissed from
`
`the proceeding or pass control to Petitioners in view of pending settlement
`
`negotiations with Patent Owner.
`
`This arrangement substantially, if not entirely, eliminates the prospect that any
`
`additional burden might be borne by Patent Owner in the joined proceeding. The
`
`only meaningful difference, from Patent Owner’s perspective, would be that
`
`Petitioners will attend calls with the Board, will be copied on any correspondence in
`
`this proceeding, and may attend depositions and trial.
`
`
`
`5
`
`6 of 8
`
`
`
`There would be no need to alter the existing scheduling order in IPR2014-
`
`01226. The joined proceedings should proceed according to that same schedule.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the above-
`
`captioned review proceeding be instituted and joined with Cisco Systems, Inc. and
`
`Quantum Corporation v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., IPR2014-01226. Any fees due in
`
`connection with this motion may be charged to Deposit Account No. 150030.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`OBLON LLP
`
`
`
`
`
` /Greg H. Gardella/
`Greg H. Gardella
`Reg. No. 46,045
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Tel: (703) 413-3000
`Fax: (703) 413-2220
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`
`
`
`
` /Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (720) 566-4119
`Fax: (720) 566-4099
`oarmon@cooley.com
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`February 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`February 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`7 of 8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(b)
`
`on the Patent Owner by UPS, next day delivery, of a copy of the foregoing MOTION
`
`FOR JOINDER at the correspondence address of record for the ‘035 Patent:
`
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`1301 W. 25TH STREET
`SUITE 408
`AUSTIN, TX 78705
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`/Greg H. Gardella/
`Greg H. Gardella
`(Reg. No. 46,045)
`
`
`
`
`
`8 of 8
`
`