`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`CIENA CORPORATION
`
`CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC., and
`
`CORIANT (USA) INC.,
`
`Petitioner v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. Unassigned
`Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Patent No. 42,368
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Coriant Operations, Inc. (“COI”), Coriant (USA) Inc. (“CUSA”), and Ciena
`
`Corporation (“Ciena”) (collectively, “Petitioner”) submit this Motion for Joinder
`
`concurrently with a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE42,368 (“the ‘368 Patent”) (“Petition”) under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), of claims 1-6, 9-12, and 15-22 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE42,368 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Petitioner requests institution of IPR and party joinder with the pending,
`
`instituted IPR, titled Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. v. Capella Photonics,
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00726 (“the FNC IPR”), based on identical grounds that form the
`
`basis for the instituted IPR proceeding. FNC initiated its proceeding by petitioning
`
`the Board on February 12, 2015; the Board instituted the FNC IPR on August 24,
`
`2015. Petitioner timely filed this Petition and this motion within one month of the
`
`institution of the FNC IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Joinder will efficiently resolve the challenges presented in the Petition and
`
`the instituted grounds of the FNC IPR and will not prejudice the patent owner or
`
`the first-petitioner FNC. Intentionally, the Petition is nearly word-for-word
`
`identical to the petition filed in the FNC IPR for the instituted grounds in an effort
`
`to avoid multiplication of issues before the Board.1 Further, the expert declaration
`
`1 The only differences between the FNC IPR Petition and this Petition are shown
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Patent No. 42,368
`submitted with the Petition is from the same declarant and is essentially identical to
`
`the declaration submitted in the FNC IPR.2
`
`Should the panel join the parties, Petitioner agrees to subordinate itself,
`
`allowing FNC to lead the joined proceedings absent settlement by FNC, in line
`
`with common Board practice. Joinder with the FNC IPR would minimally affect
`
`its procedure and substance. FNC has stated to Petitioner that it does not oppose
`
`joinder.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The ’368 patent is assigned on its face to Capella Photonics, Inc. (“Capella”
`
`or “Patent Owner”). Capella asserted the ’368 patent against Petitioner (Ciena
`
`Corporation, Coriant Operations, Inc. (formerly Tellabs Operations, Inc.), and
`
`Coriant (USA) Inc.), Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc., (FNC), Cisco, and
`
`other parties in S.D. Fla.: Capella Photonics, Inc. v. FNC Systems, Inc., filed
`
`February 12, 2014 as 1:14-cv-20529 (transferred July 24, 2014 to N.D. Cal. as
`
`3:14-cv-03348), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc.,
`
`filed February 12, 2014 as 1:14-cv-20531 (transferred July 24, 2014 to N.D. Cal.
`
`as 3:14-cv-03349) , Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., filed February
`
`in redline in Ex. 1037.
`
`2 The only differences between the declaration supporting FNC’s IPR Petition and
`
`the declaration supporting this Petition are shown in redline in Ex. 1038.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Patent No. 42,368
`12, 2014 as 0:14-cv-60350 (transferred July 24, 2014 to N.D. Cal. as 3:14-cv-
`
`03350), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Ciena Corporation et al., filed February 12,
`
`2014 as 1:14-cv-20530 (transferred July 24, 2014 to N.D. Cal. as 5:14-cv-03351),
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Columbus Networks USA, Inc., filed July 15, 2014 as
`
`0:14-cv-61629 (stayed), and Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Telefonica International
`
`Wholesale Services USA, Inc., filed July 21, 2014 as 1:14-cv-22701. All district
`
`court cases have been stayed. The ’368 patent is currently being challenged by
`
`FNC in IPR2014-00726, as noted above, and by various parties including parties of
`
`Petitioner in IPR2014-01166, IPR2015-00816 (joined with IPR2014-01166), and
`
`IPR2014-00731.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) allows an IPR party to be
`
`joined with a preexisting IPR. See generally Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`
`(2011). The statutory provision governing IPR joinder, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), reads:
`
`(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
`
`3
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Patent No. 42,368
`response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`
`partes review under section 314.
`
`Under its discretion, the Board considers how joinder will affect the
`
`substance and procedure of the preexisting proceeding. See, e.g., Decision on
`
`Motion for Joinder, Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00257,
`
`Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 20, 2013). In its response to comments on the Board’s
`
`proposed joinder rule, 37 C.F.R. § 42.122, the PTO indicated that “joinder would
`
`allow the Office to consolidate issues and to account for timing issues that may
`
`arise” when instituting multiple proceedings involving the same patent. Changes
`
`to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,707 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012). Here, joining Petitioner to the FNC IPR is appropriate.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder will not affect the Board’s ability to timely complete the
`review.
`
`Intentionally, the Petition is identical to the petition in the FNC IPR for the
`
`instituted grounds in an effort to avoid multiplication of issues. For simplicity and
`
`efficiency, Petitioner has copied FNC’s IPR petition. Petitioner does not seek to
`
`reintroduce grounds or combinations of prior art, or claims not instituted in the
`
`FNC IPR and seeks only to join the proceeding as instituted. Petitioner is retaining
`
`the same expert as FNC, Dr. Timothy Drabik. The supporting declaration of Dr.
`
`Drabik is essentially identical to the declaration he previously submitted in the
`
`FNC IPR. Capella should not require any discovery beyond that which it may
`
`4
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Patent No. 42,368
`need in the FNC IPR—nor should the Board permit any. The Petition presents no
`
`new substantive issues relative to the FNC IPR and does not seek to broaden the
`
`scope of the FNC IPR or request additional discovery. For efficiency’s sake, if
`
`joined, Petitioner and FNC have agreed that FNC’s counsel will act as the lead
`
`counsel as long as FNC remains in the proceeding.
`
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review in a timely
`
`manner.3 Section 316(a)(11) provides that IPR proceedings should be completed
`
`and the Board’s final decision issued within one year of institution of the review.
`
`See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Here, joinder will not affect the Board’s ability to
`
`issue its final determination within one year because Petitioner agrees to the same
`
`arguments instituted in the FNC IPR, retains the same expert and submits an
`
`identical declaration, and agrees to consolidated discovery. Indeed, the Petition
`
`includes only those grounds on which the FNC IPR was instituted, and the
`
`invalidity grounds were largely copied verbatim from FNC’s IPR petition.
`
`In view of the above, Petitioner submits that the current schedule in the FNC
`
`IPR can stay unchanged. At most, the Board can add an additional deadline for
`
`
`3 Petitioner notes that 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and associated rule 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(c) also grant the Board flexibility to extend the one-year period by up to six
`
`months in the case of joinder, if needed.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Patent No. 42,368
`Capella to respond to this Motion, but this deadline will not impact other deadlines
`
`in the schedule.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder will promote efficiency by consolidating issues, avoiding
`wasteful duplication, and preventing inconsistency.
`
`Petitioner presents identical supporting evidence as the FNC IPR and
`
`identical arguments for patent invalidity as instituted in the FNC IPR. Joinder will
`
`simplify briefing and discovery. Given that the FNC IPR and the Petition address
`
`the same prior art and instituted grounds for rejection of the same claims, joining
`
`these proceedings allows for joint submissions and discovery, further streamlining
`
`the proceedings. This should promote efficiency and conserve the Board’s and the
`
`parties’ resources. By contrast, the determination of the same patent validity
`
`questions for the ’368 patent in multiple proceedings would duplicate efforts, and
`
`create a risk of inconsistent results. Joinder avoids that.
`
`D. Without joinder, Petitioner may be prejudiced.
`
`Petitioner may be prejudiced if it is not permitted to join in the FNC IPR.
`
`Capella has asserted the ’368 patent against Petitioner in pending litigation.
`
`Petitioner should be permitted to join the pending IPR to participate in proceedings
`
`affecting a patent asserted against it, and thereby allowed to continue the
`
`proceedings should FNC and Capella settle under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 before a final
`
`written decision is issued.
`
`E. Joinder will not prejudice Capella or FNC.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Patent No. 42,368
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice Capella or FNC and will in fact
`
`streamline the proceedings and reduce the costs and burdens on the parties for
`
`several reasons. First, joinder will most certainly decrease the number of papers
`
`the parties must file, by eliminating a duplicative proceeding. Second, joinder will
`
`also reduce by half the time and expense for depositions and other discovery
`
`required in separate proceedings. Third, joinder creates case management
`
`efficiencies for the Board and parties without any prejudice to Capella. Fourth,
`
`Petitioner raises issues already before the Board and long known to Capella. Fifth,
`
`FNC does not oppose joinder. Addressing the same patent validity questions in a
`
`single proceeding with a statutory deadline serves the parties’ and Board’s
`
`interests.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Joinder will not affect the substance, procedure, or scheduling of the FNC
`
`IPR. Petitioner files under the statutory joinder provisions as contemplated by the
`
`AIA. Joinder will simplify the issues and promote efficiency, justice, and speed.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Patent No. 42,368
`Petitioner respectfully requests IPR on U.S. Patent No. RE42,368 and
`
`joinder with Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00726.4
`
`
`4 Although Petitioner believes no fee is required for this Motion, Petitioner
`
`authorizes the Commissioner to charge any additional fees required for this
`
`Motion, to Deposit Account No. 506239.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Patent No. 42,368
`Dated: September 24, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Matthew J. Moore/
`Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42012)
`Matthew.Moore@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`T: (202) 637-2278, F: (202) 637-2201
`
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33144)
`Bob.Steinberg@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`T: (213) 891-8989, F: (213) 891-8763
`
`Thomas K. Pratt (Reg. No. 37,210)
`TPratt@bannerwitcoff.com
`J. Pieter van Es (Reg. No. 37,746)
`PVanEs@bannerwitcoff.com
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
`Chicago, IL 60606
`T: (312) 463-5000, F: (312) 463-5001
`
`Jordan N. Bodner (Reg. No. 42,338)
`JBodner@bannerwitcoff.com
`Michael S. Cuviello (Reg. No. 59,255)
`MCuviello@bannerwitcoff.com
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`1100 13th Street NW, Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: (202) 824-3000, F: (202) 824-3001
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 and 42.100-.123,
`
`the undersigned certifies that on September 24, 2015, a complete and entire copy
`
`of this Motion for Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, And
`
`42.122(b) was served via EXPRESS MAIL®, postage prepaid, to the Patent
`
`Owner by serving the following parties:
`
`LAW OFFICES OF BARRY N. YOUNG
`P.O. Box 61197
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Patent owner’s correspondence address of record
`
`
`
`Robert Greene Sterne
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`Additional address known as likely to effect service
`
`
`
`
`
` /Matthew J. Moore/
`Matthew J. Moore
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 24, 2015