`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,502,135
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-00062
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply on Joinder in IPR2016-00062
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In its opposition, VirnetX identifies no actual effect of granting Apple’s
`
`motion, and instead contends the Board has no authority to join Apple. But that
`
`assertion conflicts not only with the statutory language, but with the Board’s rules
`
`and prior decisions. VirnetX also complains that Apple had its chance to challenge
`
`the ’135 patent via an ongoing inter partes reexamination. But VirnetX conceals its
`
`unprecedented campaign to prevent conclusion of that same proceeding. Granting
`
`Apple’s motion will actually mitigate the harm caused by VirnetX’s actions in the
`
`reexamination, which were made possible by the systemic flaws in that system
`
`which Congress sought to fix with the IPR system. Joinder here is proper.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. The Merits Warrant Joinder
`In its motion, Apple presented a petition with identical grounds and a nearly
`
`identical record of evidence, and agreed to conditions including: (i) agreeing to
`
`follow the existing schedule, (ii) not advancing independent expert testimony, and
`
`(iii) coordinating its participation with Mangrove. Paper 2 at 2. In numerous cases
`
`presenting similar circumstances, the Board has found joinder appropriate. Dell
`
`Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Soln. Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013);
`
`Oracle v. Crossroads, IPR2015-00825, Paper 20 (Sept. 17, 2015); Perfect World
`
`Ent., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2015-01026, Paper 10 (Aug. 3, 2015); LG Elec.
`
`Inc. v. Innovative Display Tech., IPR2015-00493, Paper 10 (July 10, 2015).
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply on Joinder in IPR2016-00062
`
`VirnetX ignores these considerations, and instead states in a conclusory
`
`fashion that “joining Apple will have an impact on the ‘046 proceeding.” Opp. at 8.
`
`But it nowhere reveals what that “impact” might be. It then, without any
`
`justification, asks the Board to impose additional, draconian restrictions on Apple’s
`
`participation, including, perversely, supplemental briefing by both parties. Id. at 9-
`
`10. VirnetX’s restrictions are a transparent attempt to simply prevent Apple from
`
`participating in the proceedings, while its call for supplemental briefing is both
`
`inefficient and ignores the independent interests of the Board. There is simply no
`
`basis for imposing such constraints in this case.
`
`B. VirnetX’s “Permanent Ban” Theory Conflicts with the Statute
`VirnetX’s principal challenge to joinder is its theory that a party is
`
`“permanently” barred from participating in any inter partes review under any and
`
`all circumstances if its petition is filed more than a year after service of a complaint
`
`for infringement. The Board has already rejected that theory, and for good reason –
`
`it is contrary to the statute. IPR2015-00825, Paper 20 at 10-12; see Target v.
`
`Destination Maternity, IPR2014-00508, Paper 28 (Feb 12, 2015) (expanded panel).
`
`Under § 315(b), the Director is prohibited from instituting an inter partes
`
`review on the basis of petition filed by a party more than a year after that party was
`
`served with a complaint for infringment. But, if the Director has already instituted
`
`an inter partes review, she is authorized to join any party to that instituted
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply on Joinder in IPR2016-00062
`
`proceeding as long as: (i) that party files a petition that complies with § 311 and
`
`(ii) institution on the basis of that petition is warranted under § 314. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c). And that is precisely how both the Office and the Board have read the
`
`statute. For example, Rule 122(b) waives the one year deadline in Rule 101(b)
`
`where the party filing the petition seeks to join an instituted proceeding. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The Board’s joinder decisions hold likewise. See, e.g.,
`
`IPR2014-00385, Paper 17; IPR2015-00825, Paper 20 at 10-12. The “authority”
`
`VirnetX cites in its opposition is actually a dissent in a Board decision holding
`
`precisely the opposite of what VirnetX contends. Opp. at 5. Thus, under the
`
`statute, joinder is proper because: (i) the Board found Apple’s petition to comply
`
`with § 311, see Paper 4, and (ii) the grounds in Apple’s petition warrant institution
`
`as they are the same as those upon which trial has already been instituted.
`
`VirnetX nonetheless argues that “[o]nce a petitioner like Apple ‘is time-
`
`barred under § 315(b) with respect to a particular patent, it is always time-barred.”
`
`Opp. at 5. But that argument conflicts with the plain language of § 315(b), which
`
`states “the time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a
`
`request for joinder under subsection (c).” (emphases added). VirnetX’s reading of
`
`§ 315(b) would render its second sentence a legal nullity – it would never apply, as
`
`no petition filed more than a year after service could ever be the basis of
`
`participation in any proceeding. U.S. v. Atl. Research, 551 U.S. 128, 137 (2007).
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply on Joinder in IPR2016-00062
`
`C. VirnetX’s Equities Argument Is Baseless
`VirnetX also complains about the number of petitions filed against the ’135
`
`patent, seeking to portray itself as an aggrieved party unfairly subjected to serial
`
`challenges to its ’135 patent. Nothing could be further from the truth.
`
`VirnetX started this dispute by suing Apple in 2010. Apple promptly
`
`requested inter partes reexamination of the ’135 patent, and the Office started that
`
`reexamination in 2011, finding all of the challenged claims unpatentable. In 2012,
`
`a jury found certain claims of the ’135 patent infringed; at that point, VirnetX
`
`switched gears, and began
`
`its unprecedented campaign
`
`to paralyze
`
`the
`
`reexamination. To do so, VirnetX exploited the Office’s practice of suspending
`
`party deadlines and not issuing further Office actions while a petition filed by a
`
`party remains undecided. To date, VirnetX has filed at least 21 such petitions in
`
`the ’1682 proceeding alone. Many are plainly frivolous – one sought to stop the
`
`reexamination simply because a jury had found infringement. 95/001,682, Petition
`
`(Feb. 15, 2013). Others sought reconsideration of denials of earlier petitions,
`
`waivers of page and time limits, or opposed merger, etc.1 It is simply remarkable
`
`that VirnetX suggests now, after doing everything in its power for the past four
`
`1
`The ’1682 proceeding has entered the PTAB appeal phase, and, consistent
`
`with its past practice, VirnetX filed a 109 page appeal brief, nearly three times the
`
`limit allowed by the rules, along with yet another petition to waive those rules.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply on Joinder in IPR2016-00062
`
`years to prevent the Office from concluding the ’1682 proceeding, that proceeding
`
`is Apple’s fair opportunity to address the merits of the ’135 patent.
`
`Finally, VirnetX’s depiction of the history of IPR petitions against the ’135
`
`patent is both wrong and irrelevant. For example, Apple’s first petitions were filed
`
`within 1-year of being served with a complaint for infringement after enactment of
`
`the inter partes authority. At that time, the Board had not yet interpreted § 315(b)
`
`to apply to actions initiated before enactment of the statute, an interpretation Apple
`
`could not appeal to the Federal Circuit. VirnetX also asserts “Apple had RPX
`
`Corporation file” petitions – this grossly misrepresents those proceedings. What
`
`the Board actually found was that Apple was a real-party-in-interest due to a
`
`contractual relationship with RPX, not that it had anything to do with RPX’s
`
`filings of the petitions. See, e.g., IPR2014-00171, Paper 49. But most importantly,
`
`none of these prior decisions addressed the merits of the ’135 patent, and none
`
`gave Apple an opportunity to join an instituted proceeding. The prior IPR petitions
`
`VirnetX identifies are simply irrelevant to the question whether Apple may be
`
`properly joined to this instituted inter partes review proceeding.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Under the statute, the Board’s rules and prior decisions, and based on the
`
`facts presented here, joinder of IPR2016-00062 to IPR2015-01046 is warranted.
`
`Apple’s motion should be granted.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply on Joinder in IPR2016-00062
`
`Dated: January 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan/
`Jeffrey P. Kushan (Reg No. 43,401)
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`jkushan@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply on Joinder in IPR2016-00062
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 15th day of January, 2016, a copy of this
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Joinder, has been served in its entirety by e-mail
`
`on the following counsel of record for patent owner:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`E-mail: naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan/
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`
`
`
`Dated: January 15, 2016