throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket