`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. 315(C)
`AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(B)
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 and the express authorization given by the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) in Paper Number 7 of this
`
`proceeding, Patent Owner Bandspeed (“Bandspeed” or “Patent Owner”) files this
`
`Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b). The Board should exercise its discretion to deny
`
`joinder under the facts of this proceeding. Denial of joinder would serve public
`
`policy interests, avoid scheduling issues and be consistent with PTAB inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) precedent.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`
`On May 14, 2014 Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) was served with a
`
`complaint captioned Bandspeed, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al., 1:14-cv-
`
`00436, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 (“’624 Patent”).
`
`Despite service of this complaint Qualcomm elected not to file an IPR related to
`
`the ‘624 Patent during the twelve (12) month window after service provided under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`On June 11, 2015, the PTAB instituted trial in IPR2015-00314, involving
`
`the ‘624 Patent, which was originally filed by Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.
`
`(“Marvell”) and MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. (“MediaTek”). On June
`
`10, 2015, one day prior to institution, the PTAB granted Marvell and Bandspeed’s
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`joint request to terminate the proceedings with respect to Marvell only. On the last
`
`possible day under 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b), July 13, 2015, Petitioner Qualcomm filed
`
`its motion for joinder of the instant petition with IPR2015-00314. On August 5,
`
`2015, MediaTek and Bandspeed filed their joint motion to terminate IPR2015-
`
`00314 after settlement of the litigation involving the underlying patent.1
`
`
`1 Patent Owner Bandspeed has reviewed the Statement of Material Facts
`
`contained in Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. 315(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22 and 42.122(b). While Bandspeed generally agrees with the recitation of
`
`material facts contained therein, there are several instances in which the recited
`
`facts appear to contain typographical errors or are ambiguous. Paragraph 3 of the
`
`material facts mentions a petition for IPR challenging certain claims but no specif-
`
`ic patent or IPR number is referenced. It is believed that the IPR being referred to
`
`is IPR2015-00314 and the patent being referred to is the ‘624 patent. Paragraph 4
`
`of the material facts mentions trial being instituted in IPR2015-00314 for ground 3
`
`(as modified) but it is unclear what “as modified” means. Nevertheless, it is not
`
`believed that any of these issues with respect to Petitioner’s statement of material
`
`facts are relevant for purposes of deciding the instant motion. Patent Owner Band-
`
`speed has recited additional facts herein that may be relevant to this motion for the
`
`PTAB’s consideration.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`
`III. LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Joinder of IPR Proceedings is Discretionary
`
`The decision whether to join two IPR proceedings is entirely discretionary,
`
`and the Petitioner, as the moving party in this instance, bears the burden to show
`
`that joinder is appropriate. See ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc. and T-Mobile
`
`USA Inc. v. Adaptix, Inc., Case IPR2015-01184, Paper 10 at 4. See also 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). 35 U.S.C. § 315 provides in pertinent part:
`
`JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes
`(c)
`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.
`
`When exercising its discretion on joinder, the PTAB “is mindful that patent
`
`trial regulations, including the rules of joinder, must be construed to secure the
`
`just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding…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 ZTE
`
`Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc. and T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Adaptix, Inc., Case
`
`IPR2015-01184, Paper 10 at 6. Pursuant to the legislative history on joinder, the
`
`consent of the patent owner is also an important consideration. Id. at 7. Because
`
`both scheduling and policy considerations favor denial of joinder and because the
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`PTAB has previously terminated IPR proceedings even when there is a pending
`
`motion to join, Patent Owner Bandspeed requests that joinder be denied.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`PTAB Precedent Allows for Denial of Joinder Request
`and Termination of Instituted IPR Proceeding
`
`
`
`
`The PTAB has previously exercised its discretion to terminate an instituted
`
`IPR despite a pending motion for joinder with the instituted IPR filed in another
`
`IPR prior to the filing of a motion to terminate the instituted IPR. Google Inc. and
`
`YouTube, LLC v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications,
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00977, Paper 10. In IPR2014-00977, Google, Inc. (“Google”)
`
`sought to join an already instituted IPR2014-00059 between Rackspace US, Inc.
`
`(“Rackspace”) and Personal Web Technologies, LLC (“Personal Web”). Id. at 4.
`
`IPR2014-00059 was instituted on April 15, 2014 and Google filed its motion for
`
`joinder on June 18, 2014.2 Id. On October 16, 2014, Rackspace and Personal Web
`
`filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2014-00059 with respect to all parties as well
`
`2 Google’s motion to join was also ultimately determined to be untimely (i.e.
`
`filed more than one month after the time limit imposed under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.122(b)), and in denying the motion for joinder, the PTAB noted that the mo-
`
`tion for joinder was moot because the proceeding to be joined had been terminated.
`
`The PTAB terminated the instituted IPR even though the motion to join had been
`
`filed prior to the motion to terminate. Id. at 5-6.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`as a true copy of their written settlement agreement. Id. at 6. Hence, PTAB
`
`precedent clearly permits the Board to grant a motion to terminate in an instituted
`
`IPR even when a motion for joinder with that IPR is pending and filed prior to a
`
`motion to terminate that IPR is filed.3
`
`C.
`
`
`Public Policy and Scheduling Concerns Favor Denial of
`Qualcomm’s Joinder Request
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`Denial of Joinder and Termination of Instituted IPR
`Would Encourage Early Settlement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3Patent Owner is aware of one decision in which the PTAB permitted joinder
`
`even though a patent owner and original petitioner intended to file a motion to ter-
`
`minate in the near future but had not done so yet and a motion for joinder had al-
`
`ready been filed. Nintendo of America, Inc. and Nintendo Co., Ltd. v Babbage
`
`Holdings, LLC, Case IPR2015-00568 (Paper 12). However, the Patent Owner is
`
`not aware of any instances where the PTAB has permitted joinder when a motion
`
`for termination has already been filed and joinder had not yet been perfected (i.e.
`
`there had been no decision on joinder even if a pending motion for joinder existed).
`
`Even if such decisions exist, both joinder with and termination of the instituted IPR
`
`would be discretionary with the PTAB and joinder still should not be permitted in
`
`this proceeding for public policy and scheduling reasons discussed infra.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`The PTAB should exercise its discretion to not permit joinder at this stage of
`
`IPR2015-00314. Permitting joinder under these circumstances would discourage
`
`future settlements—particularly early settlements. Public policy favors allowing
`
`parties to settle pending IPRs. The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s
`
`Guide states:
`
`N. Settlement. There are strong public policy reasons to favor
`settlement between the parties to a proceeding. The Board will be
`available to facilitate settlement discussions, and where appropriate,
`may require a settlement discussion as part of the proceeding. The
`Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a
`settlement agreement, unless the Board has already decided the merits
`of the proceeding. The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14 2012).
`
`Consistent with this policy the PTAB should not permit late joinder when
`
`the original petitioner and patent owner settle and file a motion to terminate an
`
`instituted IPR prior to a decision on joinder of the instituted IPR with another
`
`proceeding. A contrary decision would mean far fewer settlements will occur in
`
`multi-defendant cases until at least one month after institution of an IPR (possibly
`
`several months after institution if the original petitioner and patent owner must
`
`wait to see if another defendant is permitted to join after that defendant files a
`
`motion to join) because the patent owner will always be concerned that even if it
`
`settles with the original petitioner, another defendant will seek to join or be
`
`permitted to join the instituted IPR that would otherwise likely be terminated,
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`depriving the patent owner of much of the value of its settlement with the original
`
`petitioner.
`
`If joinder of two IPRs has not been perfected prior to a motion for
`
`termination being filed by all of the original parties to an instituted IPR, it should
`
`not be permitted. If the petitioner attempting to join the instituted IPR is not time-
`
`barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), then its petition should simply proceed on its own
`
`timeline. If the petitioner is time barred, then it only has itself to blame for not
`
`filing an IPR until well over a year after being served with a complaint and
`
`attempting to rely on an IPR that it has no role in until after joinder is perfected and
`
`that is filed by another entity that it does not control.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Joinder Would Create Scheduling Issues
`
`
`
`Because the rules of joinder must be construed to secure the just, speedy,
`
`and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding, scheduling concerns that may
`
`arise are of paramount importance in determining whether joinder is appropriate.
`
`See Kyocera Corporation v. Softview LLC, Case IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 3. In
`
`this case it is particularly difficult to ascertain how the already instituted IPR2015-
`
`00314 would proceed without undue delay and major adjustments to the existing
`
`scheduling order. According to MediaTek’s counsel, the expert declarant, Dr. Zhi
`
`Ding, who MediaTek utilized to support its IPR2015-00314 petition is currently
`
`located in Shanghai, China. MediaTek’s counsel was in the process of making ar-
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`rangements to bring him to the United States for a deposition prior to the agreed
`
`patent owner response deadline of September 15, 2015. However, to Bandspeed’s
`
`knowledge, MediaTek is no longer making any such efforts to arrange a deposition
`
`due to its settlement with Bandspeed and the imminent termination of MediaTek
`
`from IPR2015-00314. While Qualcomm has copied Dr. Ding’s expert declaration
`
`in support of its IPR2015-01577, it is unclear whether it has also engaged Dr. Ding
`
`as an expert in IPR2015-01577 or whether it will be able to exert control over him
`
`to bring him to the United States prior to the current patent owner response dead-
`
`line.
`
`
`
`Moreover, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), discussed supra, requires that the PTAB
`
`permit the filing of a preliminary response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 in IPR2015-
`
`01577 and, after reviewing it, make an institution decision prior to joining
`
`IPR2015-01577 with IPR2015-00314. Even if the preliminary response in
`
`IPR2015-01577 was expedited and filed prior to its current due date of October 28,
`
`2015, it would still likely be due after September 15, 2015, the current due date for
`
`patent owner’s response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 in IPR2015-00314. See Medi-
`
`aTek Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc., Case IPR2015-00314, Paper
`
`16 and Qualcomm Incorporated v. Bandspeed, Inc., Case IPR2015-01577, Paper 4.
`
`Consequently, joining IPR2015-01577 to IPR2015-00314 would require a signifi-
`
`cant adjustment to the current schedule for IPR2015-00314, including a postpone-
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`ment of Due Date 1 for the patent owner’s response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 and
`
`could compromise the PTAB’s statutorily mandated deadline for a final written
`
`opinion under 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The PTAB should exercise its discretion to deny joinder. Public policy and
`
`scheduling considerations weigh in favor of denial of joinder. PTAB precedent
`
`and the legislative history of the joinder and settlement provisions further support
`
`that joinder should be denied under the present fact pattern, particularly when the
`
`patent owner objects to such joinder and the petitioner attempting to join has
`
`deliberately chosen not to file an IPR petition within the one year window
`
`permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and filed its motion to join another entity’s IPR
`
`on the last possible day permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b).
`
`
`
`Date: August 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Gregory S. Donahue
`Gregory S. Donahue, Registration No. 47,531
`DiNOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY LLP
`7000 North MoPac Expressway
`Suite 350
`Austin, Texas 78731
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(512) 539-2626
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`
`Appendix A - Exhibit List
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 to Gan et al., issued January 13,
`2009 (“The ’624 Patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Zhi Ding in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 November 24,
`2014 (“Ding Decl.”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,760,319 to Gerten et al., issued July 6, 2004
`(“Gerten”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,418,317 to Cuffaro et al., issued July 9,
`2002 (“Cuffaro”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,407 to Gendel et al., issued September
`5, 2000 (“Gendel”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,580 to Haartsen, issued October 9,
`2007 (“Haartsen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,781,582 to Sage et al., issued July 14, 1998
`(“Sage”)
`Non-Final Office Action mailed January 12, 2012, Inter
`Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418, Control
`No. 95/000648 (“Non-Final Office Action”)
`Patent Owner’s Housekeeping Amendment, filed February
`11, 2013 in Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`7,027,418, Control No. 95/000648 (“Housekeeping Amend-
`ment”)
`Patent Owner’s Comments after Action Closing Prosecution,
`filed December 3, 2013 in Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,027,418, Control No. 95/000648 (“Comments
`After ACP”)
`Definition of “vote,” The American Heritage Dictionary, Sec-
`ond College Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
`1985; p. 1356
`Definition of “while,” The American Heritage Dictionary,
`Second College Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
`1985; p. 1376
`Definition of “Register,”– Microsoft Press Computer Diction-
`ary, 3rd Edition, Redmond, WA: Microsoft, 1997; p. 402
`Curriculum Vitae of Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01577
`Patent No. 7,477,624
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418 to Gan et al., issued April 11, 2006
`Specification of the Bluetooth System, Version 1.0B, Decem-
`ber 1, 1999
`
`1015
`1016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned PATENT OWN-
`
`ER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`
`35 U.S.C. 315(C) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(B) was served in its en-
`
`tirety on August 20, 2015 on the following parties via electronic mail:
`
`
`
`
`
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7932
`nate.rees@nortonrosefulbright.com
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`eric.hall@nortonrosefulbright.com
`ross.viguet@nortonrosefublright.com
`
`
`
` /s/ Gregory S. Donahue
`
` Gregory S. Donahue
` DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY, LLP
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 47,531