`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`
`
` Entered: August 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01014 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`Case IPR2015-01015 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`Case IPR2015-01017 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01014 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-01015 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-01017 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`LG Electronics, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and VIZIO, Inc.
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed three Petitions1 requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121
`(14 Ex. 1001, “the ’121 patent”), claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 (15 Ex. 1001, “the ’469 patent”), and claims 1,
`11, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`(17 Ex. 1001, “the ’704 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a
`Preliminary Response in each case. Paper 9. We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” For the reasons discussed below, we do not institute inter partes
`review of the ʼ121 patent, the ʼ469 patent, or the ʼ704 patent.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Background
`
`With each Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3,
`“Mot.”), seeking to join these cases with Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Straight
`Path IP Gr., Inc., IPR2014-01368, IPR2014-01367, IPR2014-01366 (PTAB
`
`1 All citations in this Decision are to IPR2015-01014 unless otherwise noted.
`IPR2015-01014, IPR2015-01015, and IPR2015-01017 include substantively
`similar filings and, accordingly, the analysis applies to IPR2015-01015 and
`IPR2015-01017. Citations may be preceded by “14” to designate IPR2015-
`01014, “15” to designate IPR2015-01015, or “17” to designate IPR2015-
`01017.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01014 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-01015 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-01017 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`Mar. 6, 2015), filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
`(collectively, “Samsung”). Petitioner and Patent Owner filed a Joint Motion
`for Entry of Joint Stipulated Order defining the parameters of joinder. Paper
`7. Subsequently, Petitioner filed an unopposed Motion to Withdraw the
`Motion for Joinder. Paper 8 (“Mot. to Withdraw”). In a separate decision,
`entered today, we grant Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw the Motion for
`Joinder.
`
`B. Time Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) recites that
`[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition
`requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the
`date on which the petitioner, real party of interest, or privy of
`the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement
`of the patent.
`
`Patent Owner filed complaints against Petitioner alleging
`infringement of the ʼ121 patent, the ʼ469 patent, and the ʼ704 patent in the
`Eastern District of Virginia on August 1, 2013. Prelim. Resp. 3–4; see Ex.
`2001. Patent Owner served the complaints on Petitioner on November 7,
`2013. Prelim. Resp. 4; see Ex. 2002. Petitioner filed these Petitions on
`April 6, 2015. Patent Owner, accordingly, submits that these Petitions are
`time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner acknowledges that if
`Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw the Motion for Joinder is granted, the
`Petitions will be time-barred. Mot. to Withdraw 2.
`We agree with both Patent Owner and Petitioner that, in view of the
`Motion to Withdraw the Motion for Joinder, the Petitions are time-barred
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01014 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-01015 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-01017 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Petitions were filed more than one year after
`Petitioner was served with complaints alleging infringement of the ʼ121
`patent, the ʼ469 patent, and the ʼ704 patent. Accordingly, the Petitions are
`time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Therefore, we do not institute an
`inter partes review of claims 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the ’121 patent,
`claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 of the ʼ469 patent, or claims 1, 11, 12,
`14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of the ʼ704 patent.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we do not institute inter partes review of
`the ʼ121 patent, the ʼ469 patent, or the ʼ704 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01014 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-01015 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-01017 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Rajeev Gupta
`Raj.gupta@finnegan.com
`
`Darren Jiron
`Darren.jiron@finnegan.com
`
`Kevin O’Brien
`Kevin.obrien@bakermckenzie.com
`
`Paul Meiklejohn
`Meiklejohn.paul@dorsey.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`William Meunier
`wameunier@mintz.com
`
`Matthew Durell
`mdurell@mintz.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5