`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 3
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Sony Corporation
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`Raytheon Company
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00209
`
`Patent No. 5,591,678
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER WITH RELATED INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,591,678
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner Sony
`
`Corporation (“Sony”) moves for joinder of its today-filed petition for inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 (“the ’678 patent”)
`
`with a previously filed IPR styled Sony Corporation v. Raytheon Company, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01201.
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder of IPR proceedings is 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c), which provides as follows:
`
`(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 response,
`
`determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`
`section 314.
`
`Relatedly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 provides in relevant part:
`
`Multiple proceedings and Joinder. (b) Request for Joinder. Joinder
`
`may be requested by a patent owner or petitioner. Any request for
`
`joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one
`
`month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which
`
`joinder is requested. The time period set forth in § 42.101(b) shall not
`
`apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) authorizes joinder of issues to a proceeding involving the
`
`same parties. Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508,
`
`Decision Granting Request For Rehearing, Paper 28, at 10 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015).
`
`“A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule
`
`for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified.” Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00385, Decision Granting Motion For Joinder, Paper 17, at 4 (PTAB July 29,
`
`2013).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On May 14, 2015, Sony filed a petition for IPR of claims 1-18 of the
`
`’678 patent, which was assigned Case No. IPR2015-01201.
`
`2.
`
`As of this motion, the Board has not issued its decision whether to
`
`institute review of IPR2015-01201.
`
`3.
`
`IPR2015-01201 raised six grounds of unpatentability of the ’678
`
`patent: (1) claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,202,754
`
`(“Bertin”); (2) claims 5 and 12-13 are obvious over Bertin as in Ground 1 in view
`
`of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 64-18248, published
`
`January 23, 1989 (“Morimoto”); (3) claim 9 is obvious over Bertin as in Ground 1
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`in further view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,982,266 (“Ying”); (4) claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 13-14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and 16-17 are obvious over Morimoto in view of a set of primarily U.S. patent
`
`references known as the “CMP / Etching references”, including U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,189,500 (“Kusunoki”); (5) claims 8 and 18 are obvious as in Ground 4 in view of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,681,718 (“Oldham”); and (6) claims 3 and 15 are obvious as in
`
`Ground 4 in view of Bertin.
`
`4.
`
`This motion is filed concurrently with Sony’s second petition for IPR
`
`of the ’678 patent, which raises eight grounds of unpatentability involving several
`
`of the same prior art references as IPR2015-01201: (1) claims 1-4, 6-7, and 10-11
`
`are anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 4,422,091 (“Liu”); (2) claims 2-4 and 11 are
`
`obvious over Liu in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4,426,768 (“Black”); (3) claims 5 and 12-
`
`16 are obvious over Liu in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,106,050 (“Riseman”); (4)
`
`claim 8 is obvious over Liu in view of Oldham, (5) claim 10 is obvious over Liu in
`
`view of U.S. Pat. No. 3,846,198 (“Wen”); (6) claim 9 is obvious over Liu and Wen,
`
`in further view of Ying; (7) claim 17 is obvious over Liu and Riseman, in further
`
`view of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 03-108776,
`
`published May 8, 1991, which is an earlier published version of Kusunoki; and (8)
`
`Claim 18 is obvious over Liu and Riseman, in further view of Oldham.
`
`5.
`
`The primary reference in the second petition, Liu, was filed on
`
`January 19, 1981, and issued on December 20, 1983, and is therefore prior art under
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). One of the two primary references in the first petition, Bertin,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was filed on September 13, 1991, and issued on April 13, 1993, and is therefore
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). In the first petition, several claims (claims 3, 6,
`
`7, 9, 11, 12, and 15) are challenged only in grounds that depend in some way on
`
`Bertin.
`
`6.
`
`The primary reference in Sony’s second petition, Liu, was not known
`
`to Sony at the time Sony’s first petition was filed. Petitioner first became aware of
`
`Liu in late August/early September, 2015.
`
`7.
`
`The ’678 patent has been asserted against Sony in Raytheon Company
`
`v. Sony Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-342 (E.D. Tex.) and Raytheon
`
`Company v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 2-15-cv-00341 (E.D.
`
`Tex.). Both cases were filed on March 6, 2015—less than one year before the filing
`
`of this motion and of Sony’s concurrently filed second petition—and remain
`
`pending.
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`Joinder Is Timely
`
`This motion is made “no later than one month after the institution date” of the
`
`IPR2015-01201 as required by Rule 42.122(b). Trial has not yet been instituted in
`
`IPR2015-01201.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`
`B.
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The Petitions Involve the Same Parties, the Same Patent, Common
`Issues, and Overlapping Prior Art
`
`The present petition for IPR of the ’678 patent involves the same parties and the
`
`same patent as IPR2015-01201. Although the present petition introduces different
`
`grounds with a new primary reference, it cites several of the same secondary
`
`references as IPR2015-01201, namely Oldham, Ying, and Kusunoki. The present
`
`petition involves the same claims and the same claim constructions as IPR2015-
`
`01201. Thus, as to claim construction and interpretation of the prior art, the
`
`petitions involve common issues. Although the petitions include many individual
`
`grounds, these grounds involve related arguments and overlapping prior art.
`
`Additionally, Sony’s expert is the same in both petitions.
`
`Sony also notes that while the first and second petitions share secondary
`
`references, the primary reference cited in the presently filed petition—Liu—is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), whereas one of the primary references in
`
`IPR2015-01201—Bertin—is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). In the first
`
`petition, claims 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 15 are only challenged in grounds that
`
`depend in some way on Bertin. The Board will appreciate that while Patent Owner
`
`may be able to establish an earlier priority date than the filing date of Bertin, Patent
`
`Owner will not be able to do so with respect to Liu. It is in the interest of
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`efficiency to consider the petitions together, to ensure that the substantive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`challenges are addressed.
`
`Given the commonalities between the two petitions, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board exercise its discretion to join the proceedings, as it has
`
`under similar circumstances in the past. For example, in Oxford Nanopore
`
`Technologies LTD. v. University of Washington, the petitioner moved to join its
`
`newly filed second IPR petition to its first IPR petition. IPR2015-00057, Motion
`
`For Joinder And/Or Consolidation, Paper 3 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2014). As here, the
`
`two petitions involved the same claims, different grounds and arguments, different
`
`primary prior art references, overlapping secondary references, and the same
`
`expert. Id. at 5-7. The Board granted the petitioner’s motion to join its newly filed
`
`IPR petition to its earlier filed proceeding. Oxford Nanopore, IPR2015-00057,
`
`Paper 10, at 23 (Apr. 27, 2015). The Board noted that, despite the different
`
`grounds presented, “[t]he two proceedings involve the same parties, the same claim
`
`of the same patent, claim 10, and both cite the [same] reference. Thus, as to claim
`
`construction and interpretation of the prior art, the two proceedings involve
`
`common issues.” Id.
`
`The Board has granted joinder in other cases involving similar circumstances to
`
`those presented here. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2013-
`
`00250, Decision Granting Motion For Joinder, Paper 24, at 2-4 (PTAB Sept. 3,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`2013) (granting joinder of two IPR petitions involving the same parties, same
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent, overlapping or related claims, and much of the same prior art); ABB Inc. v.
`
`Roy-G-Biv Corp., IPR2013-00282, Decision Granting Motion For Joinder, Paper
`
`15, at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (granting joinder of two IPR petitions involving “the
`
`same parties, the same patent, and much of the same prior art”, after limiting the
`
`scope of the second petition). As in Oxford Nanopore, Ariosa Diagnostics, and
`
`ABB Inc., Sony’s current and previously filed petitions include overlapping issues
`
`such that joinder would greatly simplify the proceedings.
`
`2. Joinder Is Not Required to Avoid the Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`The two district court cases in which the ’678 patent was asserted against Sony
`
`were filed on March 6, 2015. The date of filing of the present IPR petition
`
`concurrent with this motion is therefore well within the one year bar of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b). Accordingly, as in Oxford Nanopore, “grant of the Joinder Motion is not
`
`required to avoid the bar in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)” and so Sony “is not using its
`
`Joinder Motion as a means to circumvent the § 315(b) bar and obtain consideration
`
`on the merits of challenges it otherwise would not be entitled to present.” See
`
`Oxford Nanopore, IPR2015-00057, Paper 10, at 24. This petition therefore
`
`presents no “issue of abuse of the joinder rule to present serial petitions attacking
`
`the same claims”. Id.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Joinder Would Simplify Briefing and Discovery and Would Not
`Have Undue Impact on the Schedule
`
`Sony acknowledges that joinder will have some impact on the schedule for
`
`IPR2015-01201. However, because the present IPR petition challenges the same
`
`claims and presents overlapping prior art and similar issues, joining the two
`
`petitions will greatly simplify briefing, discovery, and other scheduling issues. See
`
`ABB Inc., IPR2013-00282, Paper 15, at 3 (“The prior art references for [the]
`
`grounds [in the second petition] substantially overlap with the references at issue in
`
`[the first petition]. This facilitates scheduling of the joined actions and minimizes
`
`delay”). Also, no additional claim terms need construction. Furthermore, Sony’s
`
`expert (Dr. Blanchard) is the same in both petitions. Thus, “joinder of the
`
`proceedings will allow for a single deposition, rather than multiple depositions, of
`
`the same witnesses.” See Ariosa Diagnostics, IPR2013-00250, Paper 24, at 4.
`
`Thus, joining the petitions would serve to conserve the parties’ and the Board’s
`
`resources.
`
`In addition, to avoid any arguable prejudice to Patent Owner, Sony is prepared
`
`to accommodate any reasonable logistical or scheduling request of Patent Owner.
`
`Thus, joinder of this proceeding with IPR2015-01201 will not unduly delay the
`
`resolution of either proceeding, but will help “secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution” of these proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Joinder Would Not Unduly Prejudice Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Sony has been diligent and timely in filing this motion soon after it learned of
`
`Liu, and before one month after an institution decision in the earlier proceeding as
`
`required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). See Target Corp., IPR2014-00508, Paper 31, at
`
`4 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) (noting that petitioner had been diligent and timely in
`
`filing its joinder motion where petitioner had filed its second IPR petition in March
`
`2014, a few months after learning about new prior art in October 2013). Because
`
`IPR2015-01201 has not yet been instituted, Sony does not have the Board’s
`
`institution decision in that case. Thus, in its second petition Sony is not responding
`
`to the Board’s position in IPR2015-01201. Sony’s willingness to accommodate
`
`any reasonable logistical or scheduling request of Patent Owner, stated above, will
`
`also avoid any potential prejudice. Thus, joinder of the concurrently filed petition
`
`to IPR2015-01201 would not cause any undue prejudice to Patent Owner.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing, Sony respectfully requests joinder of its concurrently
`
`filed petition for inter partes review of claims 1-18 of the ’678 patent with
`
`IPR2015-01201.
`
`
`
` Date: 2015-11-18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Matthew A. Smith/ (RN 49,003)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Motion for Joinder with
`
`Related Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 was served by U.S.P.S.
`
`Certified Mail this 18th day of November, 2015, on the Patent Owner's counsel of
`
`record at the United States Patent & Trademark Office having the following
`
`address:
`
`KAREN L LUM
`HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY
`BLDG C1 MAIL STATION A126
`PO BOX 80028
`LOS ANGELES CA 900800028
`
`
`
`
`
`/Matthew A. Smith/ (RN 49,003)
`
`
`
`
`
` Date: 2015-11-18
`
`
`
`
`10