`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Kia Motors America, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Signal IP, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 6,012,007
`Issued: January 4, 2000
`Filed: June 3, 1997
`Inventors: Duane Donald Fortune, Robert John Cashler
`Title: OCCUPANT DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AIR
`BAG SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2015-01004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Motion for
`
`Joinder, together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,012,007 (“the KMA Petition”) filed contemporaneously herewith. Pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner requests institution of an
`
`inter partes review and joinder with the inter partes review in American Honda
`
`Motor Co., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc., IPR2015-01004 (“the Honda IPR”) , which the
`
`Board instituted on October 1, 2015 and concerns the same patent, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,012,007 (“the ʼ007 Patent”). Petitioner’s request for joinder is timely under 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b) as it submitted no later than one month after the
`
`October 1, 2015 institution date of the Honda IPR. The KMA Petition is also
`
`narrowly tailored to the same claims, prior art, and grounds for unpatentability that
`
`are the subject of the Honda IPR. In addition, Petitioner is willing to streamline
`
`discovery and briefing. Petitioner submits that joinder is appropriate because it
`
`will not unduly burden or prejudice the parties to the Honda IPR while efficiently
`
`resolving the question of the ʼ007 Patent’s validity in a single proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`Signal IP, Inc. (“Signal IP” or “Patent Owner”) filed civil actions
`
`against Fiat U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-13864, in the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Eastern District Michigan, on October 4, 2014; Ford Motor Company, Case
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2-14-cv-13729, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
`
`on September 26, 2014; Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-
`
`03114, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on April 23,
`
`2014; Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2-14-cv-03106, in the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Central District of California, on April 23, 2014; Fiat U.S.A., Inc. et al.,
`
`Case No. 2-14-cv-03105, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, on April 23, 2014; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of
`
`America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-03113, in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Central District of California, on April 23, 2014; Jaguar Land Rover North
`
`America, LLC, Case No. 2-14-cv-03108, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`District of California, on April 23, 2014; Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, Case
`
`No. 2-14-cv-03107, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
`
`on April 23, 2014; BMW of North America, LLC et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-03111,
`
`in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on April 23, 2014;
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al., Case No. 2-14-cv-03109, in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Central District of California, on April 23, 2014; Nissan North
`
`America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02962, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`District of California, on April 17, 2014; Subaru of America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-
`
`cv-02963, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on April
`
`14, 2014; Suzuki Motor America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00607, in the U.S.
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`District Court for the Central District of California, on April 17, 2014; Kia Motors
`
`America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02457, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`District of California, on April 1, 2014; American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al.,
`
`Case No. 2-14-cv-02454, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, on April 1, 2014; Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-
`
`00491, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on April 1,
`
`2014; Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 8-14-cv-00491, in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Central District of California, on April 1, 2014; Mazda Motor of
`
`America, Inc., Case No. 2-14-cv-02459, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
`
`District of California, on April 1, 2014; Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 8-14-cv-00497, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, on April 1, 2014; Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Case No. 2-
`
`14-cv-02462, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on
`
`April 1, 2014; Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:15-cv-01085, in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Central District of California, on July 8, 2015; and Toyota
`
`North America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05162, in the U.S. District Court for
`
`the Central District of California, on July 8, 2015.
`
`2.
`
`On April 3, 2015, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al. filed a
`
`petition (“the Honda Petition”) for inter partes review requesting cancellation of
`
`claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21 of the ʼ007 Patent.
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`On October 1, 2015, the Board instituted Honda’s Petition as to two of
`
`the proposed grounds, finding that a reasonable likelihood existed that the Honda
`
`Petition would prevail in showing unpatentability of claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 17-21 of
`
`the ʼ007 Patent. The proposed grounds in the KMA Petition are substantively
`
`identical to the two grounds on which the Board instituted Honda’s petition.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Board has the authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a properly filed
`
`inter partes review petition to an instituted inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). A motion for joinder must be filed within one month of the Board
`
`instituting an original inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In deciding
`
`whether to exercise its discretion and permit joinder, the Board considers factors,
`
`including: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) whether the new petition
`
`presents any new grounds of unpatentability; (3) what impact, if any, joinder
`
`would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) how briefing and
`
`discovery may be simplified. See Kyocera Corporation v. Softview LLC, Case
`
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (April 24, 2013)).
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely because it is filed within one month of the
`
`October 1, 2015 institution decision of the Honda IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, the one-year bar set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) does not apply to the
`
`KMA Petition because this Motion for Joinder is filed concurrently with the KMA
`
`Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder
`
`here. Specifically, the KMA Petition does not present any new grounds of
`
`unpatentability, rather it is substantively identical to the Honda Petition. Further,
`
`joinder will have minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues are
`
`substantively identical and Petitioner will accept an “understudy” role. See
`
`IPR2015-01353, Decision Instituting IPR Review, Motion for Joinder, paper 11at
`
`6; (granting IPR where petitioners requested an “understudy” role); see also
`
`IPR2015-01353, Motion for Joinder, paper 4 at 5-7. Lastly, the briefing and
`
`discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a single proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, joinder is appropriate here. See IPR2015-01353, Decision Instituting
`
`IPR Review, Motion for Joinder, paper 11 at 5-6 (granting institution of IPR and
`
`motion for joinder where petitioners relied “on the same prior art, same arguments,
`
`and same evidence, including the same expert and a substantively identical
`
`declaration.”); see also IPR2015-01353, Motion for Joinder, paper 4 at 4-5.
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Joinder is Appropriate with the Honda IPR
`
`Joinder with the Honda IPR is appropriate because the KMA Petition
`
`involves the same patent, challenges the same claims, relies on the same expert
`
`declaration, and is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art
`
`submitted in the Honda Petition. Id. Further, the KMA Petition relies solely on
`
`grounds from the Honda Petition that the Board instituted on October 1, 2015. The
`
`KMA Petition is substantively identical to the Honda Petition, containing only
`
`minor differences related to formalities of a different party filing the petition.
`
`Other than these mere differences related to formalities, there are no changes to the
`
`facts, citations, evidence, or arguments presented in the Honda Petition. Because
`
`these proceedings are substantively identical, good cause exists for joining this
`
`proceeding with the Honda IPR so that the Board can efficiently resolve all
`
`grounds in both the KMA and Honda Petitions in a single proceeding. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Petitioner Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The KMA Petition does not present any new grounds of unpatentability.
`
`The KMA Petition is substantively identical to the Honda Petition, except that it
`
`only includes grounds the Board instituted. The KMA Petition presents the
`
`unpatentability of the same claims of the same patent in the same way as the
`
`Honda Petition.
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Joinder Will Not Unduly Burden or Negatively Impact the Honda
` IPR Trial Schedule
`
`Because the KMA Petition is substantively identical to the Honda Petition,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with the same grounds rejecting the same claims, as instituted by the Board, there
`
`are no new issues for Patent Owner to address. Due to the same issues being
`
`presented in the Honda Petition, Patent Owner will not be required to present any
`
`additional responses or arguments. See IPR2015-01353, Decision Instituting IPR,
`
`Motion for Joinder, paper 11 at 6 (granting IPR and motion for joinder where
`
`“joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or discovery from Patent
`
`Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR].”); see also IPR2015-
`
`01353, Motion for Joinder, paper 4 at 5-7. Without any new issues present, there is
`
`no reason to delay or alter the trial schedule already present in the Honda IPR, and
`
`Petitioner explicitly consents to the existing trial schedule. Further, the Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response already filed in the Honda IPR addresses any and all
`
`issues in the KMA Petition, since the issues are substantively identical to the issues
`
`of the Honda Petition. See IPR2015-01004, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,
`
`paper 6.
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner Response will also not be negatively impacted because
`
`the issues presented in the Honda Petition are identical to the issues presented in
`
`the KMA Petition. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional
`
`analysis or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to the
`8
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`
`
`
`
`Honda Petition. Id. Also, because the KMA Petition relies on the same expert and
`
`a substantively identical declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the
`
`proposed joined proceeding.
`
`
`
`Joinder of this proceeding with the Honda IPR does not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule in any meaningful way. Further, even if a
`
`small adjustment of the trial schedule was necessary, this is already provided for in
`
`the rules and is a routine undertaking by parties in IPR proceedings. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(c). Thus, a slight adjustment in the trial schedule, should one be needed,
`
`is not enough of a reason to deny joining the present KMA Petition with the Honda
`
`IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`
`The Honda Petition and KMA Petition present substantively identical
`
`grounds of rejection, including the same art combinations against the same claims.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, as described
`
`by the Board:
`
`(a) all filings by [Petitioner] in the joined proceeding be consolidated with
`[the filings of the petitioner in the Honda IPR], unless a filing solely
`concerns issues that do not involve [the petitioner in the Honda IPR]; (b)
`[Petitioner] shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`instituted by the Board in the [Honda IPR], or introduce any argument or
`discovery not already introduced by [the petitioner in the Honda IPR]; (c)
`[Petitioner] shall be bound by any agreement between [Patent Owner] and
`9
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`
`
`
`
`[the petitioner in the Honda IPR] concerning discovery and/or depositions;
`and (d) [Petitioner] at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross
`examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for [the petitioner in the
`Honda IPR] alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between
`[Patent Owner] and [the petitioner in the Honda IPR].
`
`See IPR2014-00550, paper 38 at 5 (Apr. 10, 2015). Petitioner will assume the
`
`primary role only if Honda ceases to participate in the Honda IPR. The petitioner
`
`in the Honda IPR has no objection to Petitioner joining in an “understudy” role.
`
`
`
`Thus, by Petitioner accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioner can comply with the current trial schedule and avoid any duplicative
`
`efforts by the Board or the Patent Owner. These steps will minimize any potential
`
`complications or delay that potentially may result by joinder. See IPR2015-01353,
`
`Decision Instituting IPR, paper 11 at 6-7 (granting IPR and motion for joinder
`
`because “joinder would increase efficiency by eliminating duplicative filings and
`
`discovery, and would reduce costs and burdens on the parties as well as the Board”
`
`where petitioners agreed to an “understudy” role.); see also IPR2015-01353,
`
`Motion for Joinder, paper 4 at 6-7.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Based on the factors discussed above, Petitioner respectfully requests that
`
`the Board grant the KMA Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`10
`
`
`
`6,012,007 and then grant joinder with the American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v.
`
`Signal IP, Inc., IPR2015-01004 proceeding.
`
`
`
`/s/ Heath J. Briggs
`Heath J. Briggs (Reg. No. 54,919)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: (303) 572-6500
`Fax: (303) 572-6540
`Email: briggsh@gtlaw.com
`
`Patrick J. McCarthy (Reg. No. 62,762)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`2101 L Street NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: (202) 331-3100
`Fax: (202) 331-3101
`Email: mccarthyp@gtlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner KIA MOTORS
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: October 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NY 245463666v10
`
`11