`Filed: January 8, 2016
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0490
`E-mail:
`PH-VirnetX-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`E-mail:
`PH-VirnetX-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`__________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`APPLE’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................. 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 3
`
`A. Granting Apple’s Motion for Joinder Is Statutorily Barred ................. 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Joining Apple Will Impact the ’046 Proceeding and Apple Will
`Not Be Prejudiced if the Board Denies Joinder ................................... 8
`
`If Apple’s Joinder Motion Is Granted, its Participation in the
`Mangrove Proceeding Should Be Limited ........................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Achates Reference Publ’g, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Avaya Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-0071, Paper No. 40 (July 29, 2013) .................................................... 10
`
`Butamax Adv. Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`IPR2014- 00581, Paper No. 8 (Oct. 14, 2014) ..................................................... 5
`
`Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17 (July 29, 2013) .................................................... 8
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast Inc.,
`IPR2014-00271, Paper No. 20 (June 13, 2014) .................................................... 4
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. E-Watch, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00611, Paper No. 9 (July 10, 2015) .................................................... 10
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`IPR2014-00508, Paper No. 28, Dissent slip op. (Feb. 12, 2015) ......................... 5
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F. 3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 2
`
`Zhongshan Ocean Motor Co. v. Nidec Motor Corp.,
`IPR2015-00762, Paper No. 16 (Oct. 5, 2015) ..................................................... 4
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .................................................................................................. 4, 7, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ............................................................................................passim
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`For the fifth time, Apple has been responsible for filing a petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 (“the ’135 patent”). Its first two
`
`concurrently filed petitions, in IPR2013-00348 and IPR2013-00349, were denied
`
`as untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Apple had RPX Corporation file its next
`
`two petitions in IPR2014-00171 and IPR2014-00172, but they were also dismissed
`
`as untimely. Now, Apple has filed yet another petition, IPR2016-00062 (“the ’062
`
`proceeding”). This time, Apple accompanies its petition with a motion for joinder
`
`with IPR2015-01046 (“the ’046 proceeding”), filed by The Mangrove Partners
`
`Master Fund, Ltd. (“Mangrove”). Apple’s repeated filings and its request for
`
`joinder are an attempt to evade the time bar of § 315(b) and should be rejected.
`
`Not only does the plain language of § 315(b) require this result, § 315(c) and
`
`Congress’s express intent to avoid serial harassment of patent owners confirms it.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner VirnetX respectfully requests that the Board deny Apple’s
`
`motion requesting joinder of the ’062 proceeding with the ’046 proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`VirnetX requests that the Board deny Apple’s motion for joinder (“Mot.”).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`On August 11, 2010, VirnetX served Apple with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ’135 patent and other VirnetX patents. (Ex. 2002, VirnetX
`
`Inc.’s Original Complaint in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. et al., Case No. 6:10-
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`cv-00417 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2010) (“the ’417 litigation”).) In response, Apple
`
`alleged, among other things, noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of
`
`the ’135 patent. (Ex. 2003, Apple’s Answer in the ’417 Litigation at ¶¶ 37, 40-42,
`
`122-123, counterclaim ¶¶ 6-10, 11, 15-30, (E.D. Tex. April 16, 2012).) Prior to
`
`trial, Apple also requested inter partes reexamination of the ’135 patent. The
`
`proceeding was assigned Control No. 95/001,682 (“the ’1,682 reexamination”) and
`
`is ongoing.
`
`Following a five day trial, the district court upheld the validity of the ’135
`
`patent. (Ex. 2004, Jury Verdict Form in the ’417 litigation (E.D. Tex. Nov. 6,
`
`2012); Ex. 2005, Final Judgment in the ’417 litigation (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2013).)
`
`Apple appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which
`
`affirmed that “none of the asserted claims are invalid[.]” VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco
`
`Sys., Inc., 767 F. 3d 1308, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`After trial, in November 2012, VirnetX served Apple with a related
`
`complaint involving the ’135 patent and three other VirnetX patents. (Ex. 2006,
`
`VirnetX Inc.’s Original Complaint in VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:12-cv-
`
`00855 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2012) (“the ’855 litigation”).) In response, Apple again
`
`alleged, among other things, noninfringement and invalidity of the ’135 patent.
`
`(Ex. 2007, Apple’s Answer in the ’855 Litigation at ¶¶ 10, 13-15, 37-38,
`
`counterclaim ¶¶ 7, 9 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2013).)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`Almost three years after the ’135 patent was first asserted against Apple,
`
`Apple submitted its first two petitions for inter partes review of the ’135 patent.
`
`See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2013-00348, Paper No. 1 (June 12, 2013); see
`
`also Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2013-00349, Paper No. 1 (June 12, 2013). The
`
`Board denied these petitions because they were “not filed within the time limit
`
`imposed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” IPR2013-00348, Paper No. 14 at 5 (Dec. 13,
`
`2013), reh’g denied Paper No. 18 (Feb. 12, 2014); IPR2013-00349, Paper No. 14
`
`at 5 ( Dec. 13, 2013), reh’g denied Paper No. 18 (Feb. 12, 2014).
`
`RPX Corporation then filed two petitions for inter partes review of the ’135
`
`patent, but the Board found that Apple was an unidentified real party-in-interest in
`
`both petitions and denied institution under § 315(b)’s time bar. See RPX Corp. v.
`
`VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00171, Paper No. 57 at 3 (redacted) (June 5, 2014); see also
`
`RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00172, Paper No. 57 at 3 (redacted) (June 5,
`
`2014).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`The Board should not grant Apple’s motion because § 315(b) statutorily
`
`prohibits joinder and because denial will not prejudice Apple. To the extent Apple
`
`is joined, however, its participation should be limited in the ’047 proceeding.
`
`A. Granting Apple’s Motion for Joinder Is Statutorily Barred
`It is undisputed that VirnetX served Apple with “a complaint” alleging
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`infringement of the ’135 patent more than one year before the Petition was filed.
`
`Accordingly, institution of Apple’s petition is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). See,
`
`e.g., Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2013-00348, Paper No. 14 at 5 (Dec. 13, 2013), reh’g
`
`denied Paper No. 18 (Feb. 12, 2014); see also Apple v. VirnetX, IPR2013-00349,
`
`Paper No. 14 at 5 (Dec. 13, 2013), reh’g denied Paper No. 18 (Feb. 12, 2014).
`
`Joinder is only permitted if the Board first determines that Apple’s petition
`
`warrants institution. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“the Director . . . may join . . . any person
`
`who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director . . . determines
`
`warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314”). Because
`
`Apple’s untimeliness precludes institution under § 315(b), it also precludes joinder
`
`under § 315(c).
`
`The Board has interpreted the last sentence of § 315(b) to mean that “the
`
`one-year time bar does not apply” if a party filing a time-barred petition requests
`
`joinder. See Zhongshan Ocean Motor Co. v. Nidec Motor Corp., IPR2015-00762,
`
`Paper No. 16 at 5 (Oct. 5, 2015) (split expanded panel) (finding a § 315(b) time-
`
`bar not to apply because Ҥ 315(c) permits the joinder of any person who properly
`
`files a petition under § 311”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00271, Paper No. 20 at 7 (June 13, 2014). VirnetX respectfully disagrees with
`
`such an interpretation of § 315(b). See Zhongshan Ocean Motor Co. v. Nidec
`
`Motor Corp., IPR2015-00762, Paper No. 16, Dissent slip op. at 2 (Oct. 5, 2015)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`(“the majority’s position is misplaced because it reads too much into § 315(c)’s use
`
`of the word ‘any’”); but see Achates Reference Publ’g, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d
`
`652 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (stating in dicta that “an otherwise time-barred party may
`
`nonetheless participate in an inter partes review proceeding if another party files a
`
`proper petition”). In particular, as explained in Target Corp. v. Destination
`
`Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508, Paper No. 28, Dissent slip op. at 18 (Feb. 12,
`
`2015):
`
`[S]uch an interpretation “effectively rewrites the second
`sentence of § 315(b) as follows, with added material
`underlined: The time limitation set forth in the preceding
`sentence shall not apply to a petition accompanied by a
`request for joinder under subsection (c) if that request is
`granted.
`
`Such an “interpretation of § 315(b) converts the statutory bar set forth therein into
`
`a discretionary bar in certain circumstances, including those present in this
`
`proceeding.” Id. Once a petitioner like Apple “is time-barred under § 315(b) with
`
`respect to a particular patent, it is always time-barred.” Id. at 19 (emphasis added).
`
`In fact, the Board has acknowledged that “[t]he statute does . . . set forth at least
`
`one circumstance in which we do not have the discretion to join a party: if the
`
`Board determines that the second petition does not warrant institution.” Butamax
`
`Adv. Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2014- 00581, Paper No. 8 at 7 (Oct. 14, 2014)
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`(emphasis in original). Because Apple remains time-barred to challenge the ’135
`
`patent via inter partes review, its Petition does not warrant institution generally
`
`and so institution is impossible under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`The last sentence of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) states that “[t]he time limitation set
`
`forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under
`
`subsection (c).” The AIA, and indeed § 315 itself, distinguishes between petitions
`
`for inter partes review and requests for joinder. The last sentence of § 315(b)
`
`provides an exception to the one-year bar only for a request for joinder, not for a
`
`petition for inter partes review. Thus, the one-year bar continues to apply to all
`
`petitions, even in the joinder context. The request-for-joinder exception of
`
`§ 315(b) applies only when two timely petitions are filed, but the request for
`
`joinder is made more than a year after being served with a complaint.
`
`This reading makes sense because joinder is not available until after a
`
`petition has been instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Since an institution decision can
`
`take up to six months, it is likely that many requests for joinder will occur more
`
`than one year after being served with a complaint. The statutory language
`
`addresses this concern. It does not, however, provide a backdoor for time-barred
`
`petitions to be effectively instituted through joinder. Such a view would be
`
`contrary to Congress’s intent to “prevent[] the serial harassment of patent
`
`holders[,]” which particularly applies to parties like Apple who have already had
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`ample opportunity to present validity challenges in district court, appellate court,
`
`and in reexamination. (Ex. 2008, House Judiciary Transcript for Mark-Up of H.R.
`
`1249, The America Invents Act at 72 (Apr. 14, 2011).)
`
`Apple’s petition in the ’062 proceeding represents its eighth attack on the
`
`’135 patent at the Office and in litigation in the last four years and is indicative of
`
`the type of “serial harassment” Congress intended to avoid. Granting the relief that
`
`Apple requests here gives Apple the opportunity to participate in an inter partes
`
`review more than five years after first receiving a complaint and after having had
`
`opportunities to challenge the patent before a jury, the Federal Circuit, and the
`
`Office, contrary to what Congress intended.
`
`Permitting untimely petitions to be instituted through joinder is also contrary
`
`to the joinder statute. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), a party may be joined if it has
`
`“properly file[d] a petition under section 311.” (Emphasis added.) Senator Kyl
`
`addressed the meaning of the phrase “properly file[d],” stating that “time deadlines
`
`for filing petitions must be complied with in all cases.” (Ex. 2009, 154 Cong. Rec.
`
`S9982, S9988 (daily ed. Sep. 27, 2008) (statement of Sen. Kyl).) Section 315(c) is
`
`consistent with this view, because it requires compliance with § 311, which in turn
`
`requires compliance with the other provisions of Title 35, Chapter 31 of the
`
`U.S. Code, including the timeliness provisions. 35 U.S.C. § 311 (“Subject to the
`
`provisions of this chapter, a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent.”).
`
`The Board has recognized that § 311 limits joinder under § 315(c), but
`
`disregards the portion of § 311 that also requires compliance with other provisions
`
`of Chapter 31. See, e.g., Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17 at 5-6 (July 29, 2013). This interpretation is
`
`incorrect, as it disregards the plain statutory language. The Board’s interpretation
`
`would also mean that other provisions of Chapter 31 do not apply to petitions when
`
`joinder is requested, such as the petition requirements of § 312(a). This is not what
`
`the statutory language permits, and is certainly not what Congress intended, yet it
`
`is what the Board’s statutory interpretation would permit.
`
`Under the plain language of §§ 315(b) and (c), joinder of Apple’s untimely
`
`petition is prohibited.
`
`B.
`
`Joining Apple Will Impact the ’046 Proceeding and Apple Will
`Not Be Prejudiced if the Board Denies Joinder
`
`Contrary to Apple’s arguments, joining Apple will have an impact on the
`
`’046 proceeding. As Apple admits, its petition raises additional issues and
`
`evidence. (Pet. at 39-42; Mot. at 6.) Thus, joining Apple will increase the burden
`
`on the parties and the Board.1
`
`1 To the extent Apple is joined to the ’046 proceeding, these issues and
`
`exhibits should not be introduced into the ’046 proceeding.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`In addition, Apple’s petition is not simply a way to “allow Apple to ensure
`
`the Board does not resolve an issue in this proceeding that would impact those
`
`other proceedings.” (See Mot. at 5.) Rather, it is in addition to (and adding
`
`additional expense to) an issue already resolved in litigation (Exs. 2004, 2005) and
`
`already being considered before the Office. To the extent Apple desires a less-
`
`expensive and different mechanism from district court litigation to challenge the
`
`validity of the ’135 patent, it is currently enjoying that opportunity with the
`
`ongoing ’1,682 reexamination proceeding.2
`
`Apple has had and continues to have ample opportunity to present validity
`
`challenges relating to the ’135 patent. It does not need and is not entitled to yet
`
`another serial attempt to challenge the ’135 patent. Therefore, denying Apple
`
`another attempt at challenging the validity of the ’135 patent will not prejudice it.
`
`C.
`
`If Apple’s Joinder Motion Is Granted, its Participation in the
`Mangrove Proceeding Should Be Limited
`
`VirnetX conditionally requests that, should the Board grant Apple’s Motion,
`
`a number of procedural conditions be adopted to reduce the prejudice to VirnetX
`
`2 Apple alleges that the ’1,682 reexamination proceeding has been subject to
`
`delays caused by petitions filed by VirnetX. (Mot. at 5.) This is not the case.
`
`Many of the petitions filed by VirnetX have been granted by the Office, reflecting
`
`the fact that VirnetX’s petitions have been meritorious.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`and reduce the disruption to the present proceeding, as the Board has done in other
`
`similar situations (see, e.g., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. E-Watch, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00611, Paper No. 9 at 6-7 (July 10, 2015); see also Avaya Inc. v.
`
`Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-0071, Paper No. 40 at 7-9, 11-12
`
`(July 29, 2013).). Those conditions include at least the following: (1) the
`
`Scheduling Order in place for the ’046 proceeding (Paper Nos. 12, 20) shall govern
`
`the joined proceedings; (2) that, throughout the joined proceeding, Mangrove will
`
`be responsible for the preparation and filing of any papers; (3) Mangrove will
`
`conduct the deposition of any VirnetX witness; (4) Mangrove will be responsible
`
`for any redirect of its expert, Dr. Roch Guerin; and (5) Mangrove will conduct all
`
`oral arguments. Also, to the extent the Board allows Apple to file any paper for
`
`any filing by Mangrove, Apple’s paper should not exceed three pages and may
`
`address only points of disagreement with Mangrove; any VirnetX response
`
`permitted by the Rules, the Board, or otherwise, may be three additional pages,
`
`should Apple file such a paper. Finally, the additional issues and evidence
`
`submitted by Apple should not be introduced into the ’046 proceeding. (Pet. at 39-
`
`42; Mot. at 6.)
`
`Apple agreed to be limited (Mot at 6) and given that Apple has had and
`
`continues to have ample opportunity to challenge the ’135 patent, and that its
`
`petition in the ’062 proceeding is time-barred, Apple will not be prejudiced by
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`these conditions.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth above, the Board should deny Apple’s motion for
`
`joinder. Alternatively, if Apple’s motion is granted, the Board should limit
`
`Apple’s participation in the proceeding as set forth above.
`
`Dated: January 8, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00062
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Opposition to Apple’s Motion for Joinder and supporting materials by electronic
`
`means on the date below at the following address of record:
`
`Counsel for Apple Inc.:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott Border
`Thomas A. Broughan III
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`Dated: January 8, 2016