throbber
Paper No.
`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. IPR2016-00063
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`__________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`APPLE’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 2
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................. 2
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 3
`
`A. Granting Apple’s Motion for Joinder Is Statutorily Barred ................. 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Joining Apple Will Impact the ’047 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 ......................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`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, 5
`
`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. IPR2015-00063
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`For the fourth time, Apple has been responsible for filing a petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151 (“the ’151 patent”). Its first petition, in
`
`IPR2013-00354, was denied as untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Apple had
`
`RPX Corporation file its next petition in IPR2014-00173, but it was also dismissed
`
`as untimely. Apple then filed another petition, IPR2015-00187 (“the ’187
`
`proceeding”). Apple accompanied its petition in the ’187 proceeding with a
`
`motion for joinder with IPR2014-00610 (“the ’610 proceeding”), filed by
`
`Microsoft. But in part because of the termination of the ’610 proceeding, and
`
`given Apple’s time-barred status, the Board again denied institution. Now, Apple
`
`has filed yet another petition, IPR2016-00063 (“the ’063 proceeding”). This time,
`
`Apple accompanies its petition with a motion for joinder with IPR2015-01047
`
`(“the ’047 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
`
`’063 proceeding with the ’047 proceeding.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`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 ’151 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-
`
`cv-00417 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2010) (“the ’417 litigation”).) In response, Apple
`
`alleged, among other things, noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of
`
`the ’151 patent. (Ex. 2003, Apple’s Answer in the ’417 Litigation at ¶¶ 37, 43-45,
`
`122-123, counterclaim ¶¶ 6-10, 12, 15, 31-37 (E.D. Tex. April 16, 2012).) Prior to
`
`trial, Apple also requested inter partes reexamination of the ’151 patent. The
`
`proceeding was assigned Control No. 95/001,697 (“the ’1,697 reexamination”) and
`
`is ongoing.
`
`Following a five day trial, the district court upheld the validity of the ’151
`
`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
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`complaint involving the ’151 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 ’151 patent.
`
`(Ex. 2007, Apple’s Answer in the ’855 Litigation at ¶¶ 16-18, 37-38, counterclaim
`
`¶¶ 7, 9 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2013).)
`
`Almost three years after the ’151 patent was first asserted against Apple,
`
`Apple submitted a petition for inter partes review of the ’151 patent. See Apple
`
`Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2013-00354, Paper No. 5 (June 17, 2013). The Board
`
`denied this petition because it was “not filed within the time limit imposed by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b).” See id., Paper No. 20 at 5 (Dec. 13, 2013).
`
`RPX Corporation then filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’151
`
`patent, but the Board found that Apple was an unidentified real party-in-interest
`
`and denied institution under § 315(b)’s time bar. See RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00173, Paper No. 56 (July 14, 2014) (redacted Decision Denying
`
`Institution). Apple’s IPR petition was similarly found to be time-barred in the ’187
`
`proceeding. IPR2015-00187, Paper No. 11 at 2-3 (February 17, 2015).
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`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
`
`infringement of the ’151 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, IPR2013-00354, Paper No. 20 at 5 (Dec. 13, 2013). 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
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`Motor Corp., IPR2015-00762, Paper No. 16, Dissent slip op. at 2 (Oct. 5, 2015)
`
`(“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
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`Adv. Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2014- 00581, Paper No. 8 at 7 (Oct. 14, 2014)
`
`(emphasis in original). Because Apple remains time-barred to challenge the ’151
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`holders[,]” which particularly applies to parties like Apple who have already had
`
`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 ’063 proceeding represents its seventh attack on the
`
`’151 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
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`provisions of this chapter, a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with
`
`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 ’047 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
`
`’047 proceeding. As Apple admits, its petition raises additional issues and
`
`evidence. (Pet. at 54-59; Mot. at 6.) Thus, joining Apple will increase the burden
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`on the parties and the Board.1
`
`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 ’151 patent, it is currently enjoying that opportunity with the
`
`ongoing ’1,697 reexamination proceeding.2
`
`Apple has had and continues to have ample opportunity to present validity
`
`challenges relating to the ’151 patent. It does not need and is not entitled to yet
`
`another serial attempt to challenge the ’151 patent. Therefore, denying Apple
`
`another attempt at challenging the validity of the ’151 patent will not prejudice it.
`
`
`1 To the extent Apple is joined to the ’047 proceeding, these issues and
`
`exhibits should not be introduced into the ’047 proceeding.
`
`2 Apple alleges that the ’1,697 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. IPR2015-00063
`
`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
`
`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 ’047 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 ’047 proceeding. (Pet. at 54-
`
`59; Mot. at 6.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`Apple agreed to be limited (Mot. At 6) and given that Apple has had and
`
`continues to have ample opportunity to challenge the ’151 patent, and that its
`
`petition in the ’063 proceeding is time-barred, Apple will not be prejudiced by
`
`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, 2015
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00063
`
`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, 2015

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