UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________________
`
`ZTE USA, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________________________
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,321,368
`
`Case IPR No. IPR2016-00666
`
`__________________________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________________
`
`ZTE USA, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________________________
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,321,368
`
`Case IPR No. IPR2016-00666
`
`__________________________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`ZTE USA, Inc. (“Petitioner”) submits concurrently herewith a Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368 (“the ’368 Patent”) (“Petition”)
`
`based on grounds identical to those asserted in HTC Corp. et al. v. Parthenon
`
`Unified Memory Architecture, LLC, IPR2015-01500 (“the HTC IPR”).
`
`Pursuant to 35 US.C. § 315(c), Petitioner respectfully moves that this
`
`Petition be instituted and joined with the HTC IPR, which has already been
`
`instituted. The Petition is a copy of the HTC IPR petition (“the HTC Petition”) in
`
`all material aspects, challenging the same claims of the ’368 Patent on the same
`
`grounds while relying on the same prior art and evidence. Joining the Petition to
`
`the HTC IPR will result in a consolidated IPR with six petitioners—HTC Corp.,
`
`HTC America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “the Initial Petitioners”), and
`
`Petitioner—thereby promoting an efficient determination of the validity of the ’368
`
`Patent.
`
`Petitioner requests that the institution of this Petition be limited solely to the
`
`grounds that were instituted in the HTC IPR, and further requests an opportunity to
`
`join the HTC IPR as an “understudy,” only assuming an active role in the event
`
`that at least one of the Initial Petitioners settle with Parthenon Unified Memory
`
`Architecture LLC (“Parthenon”). This petition does not add or alter any arguments
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that have already been considered by the Board, and this petition does not seek to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`expand the grounds of invalidity that the Board has already found support of
`
`institution of IPR proceedings. In addition, joinder will have no impact on the
`
`schedule in the HTC IPR.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that this motion for joinder to
`
`the HTC IPR be granted.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`Parthenon is the owner of the ’368 Patent. In 2014 and 2015, Parthenon
`
`sued nine (9) different companies, including Petitioner and the Initial Petitioners,
`
`for allegedly infringing the ’368 Patent (the “Underlying Litigation”). The Initial
`
`Petitioners filed their petition for inter partes review of the ’368 Patent on June 24,
`
`2015. Parthenon filed its preliminary response on October 7, 2015. The Board
`
`issued a decision granting Institution on Grounds B-D in the HTC IPR on January
`
`6, 2016. Petitioner here moves for joinder with the HTC IPR.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`A. Legal standards and applicable rules
`The Board has discretion to join a filed IPR petition to an IPR proceeding.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Sec.
`
`Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 19, at 4-6; Sony Corp. v. Yissum Res. &
`
`Dev. Co. of the Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, IPR2013-00326, Paper 15, at 3-4;
`2
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109, Paper 15, at 3-4. “The Board
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`will determine whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
`
`the particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural issues, and other
`
`considerations.” Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper 19, at 3. The movants bear the
`
`burden of proof in establishing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). 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, IPR2013-00385, Paper 19, at 4.
`
`The Board also has discretion to “waive or suspend a requirement [of the
`
`rules]” including 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). 37 C.F.R § 42.5(b).
`
`Special circumstances warrant a waiver of 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`B.
`Petitioner submits that the following special circumstances warrant
`
`invocation of waiver of pertinent requirements (most notably the requirement of
`
`Rule 42.122 that motions for joinder be filed no later than one month after the
`
`institution date of the IPR for which joinder is requested) pursuant to Board’s
`
`authority set forth in Rule 42.5(b):
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`•
`
`The Petition raises only arguments and grounds that are
`
`substantively identical to the arguments and grounds in the HTC
`
`IPR. PTAB decisions now clearly indicate that the copy-and-paste
`
`method is the preferred means to join an instituted IPR. See, e.g.,
`
`Sony Corp. of America, et al. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00495, Paper No. 13, at 4 (Sep. 16, 2013). Thus, there
`
`would be no new issues beyond those already before the Board.
`
`•
`
`Petitioner agrees to an “understudy” role in the HTC IPR.
`
`Petitioner will not file additional written submissions, nor will it pose
`
`questions at depositions or argue at oral hearing without prior
`
`permission. Only in the event that at least one of the Initial Petitioners
`
`settle, will Petitioner seek to become active in the HTC IPR.
`
`•
`
`Petitioner will be greatly prejudiced if not joined. If Parthenon
`
`settles with the Initial Petitioners, and if a final decision in the HTC
`
`IPR is not issued, then Petitioner will have to meet a much higher
`
`standard (clear and convincing) when arguing invalidity before the
`
`court than before the Board (preponderance of the evidence).
`
`•
`
`The Petition is filed not more than one year of service of the
`
`complaint on February 26, 2015. Thus, the instant Petition is not
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`subject to the one year time bar of Section 315(b). Accordingly,
`
`joining the Petition with the HTC IPR will prevent multiple IPR
`
`proceedings on the same patent asserting the same grounds.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder will not impact the schedule or the Board’s ability to
`complete the review within the one-year period
`
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. Section 316(a)(11) provides that IPR proceedings should be
`
`completed and the Board’s final decision issued within one year of institution of
`
`the review. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Here, joinder will not affect the
`
`Board’s ability to issue its final determination within one year because Petitioner
`
`agrees to an understudy role and does not raise any issues that are not already
`
`before the Board. Indeed, the Petition includes only those grounds on which the
`
`HTC IPR was instituted, copying all material aspects of the instituted grounds from
`
`the HTC Petition.
`
`Given that Petitioner will assume an understudy role, its presence will not
`
`introduce any additional arguments, briefing, or need for discovery.
`
`Petitioner only offers identical support that the Initial Petitioners previously
`
`introduced. For example, the Petition relies on the expert witness already involved
`
`in the HTC IPR, Dr. Santhana Chari. Petitioner has not submitted a new
`
`declaration.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Parthenon has filed a preliminarily response to the grounds asserted in the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`HTC IPR on October 7, 2015. HTC, IPR2015-01500, Paper 7 (Oct. 7, 2015).
`
`Thus, Petitioner submits that Parthenon does not need to file a Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, and requests that the Board proceed without it. See
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00256, Paper 8 (June 13, 2013)
`
`(allowing the Patent Owner to file a preliminary response addressing only those
`
`points raised in the new petition that were different from those in the granted
`
`petition). Here, because the invalidity grounds are, word-for-word, identical to
`
`those grounds petitioned for in the HTC IPR, there is nothing new for Parthenon to
`
`address.
`
`Further, for efficiency’s sake, Petitioner will:
`
`1. Adhere to all applicable deadlines in the HTC IPR;
`
`2. Submit “consolidated” filings with the Initial Petitioners, as set forth
`
`above in the statement of precise relief requested;
`
`3. Refrain from requesting or reserving any additional depositions or
`
`deposition time;
`
`4. Refrain from requesting or reserving additional oral hearing time; and
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`5. Assume a understudy role as long as the Initial Petitioners remain in
`
`the proceeding.1
`
`In view of these provisions, joinder should not affect the trial schedule.
`
`D.
`
`Joinder is appropriate because it would enhance efficiency by
`avoiding duplicate efforts and avoid prejudice to Petitioner
`
`A final written decision on the validity of the ’368 Patent will at least
`
`minimize issues in the Underlying Litigation and, at most, resolve the Underlying
`
`Litigation altogether. Allowing Petitioner to join would also avoid inconsistency
`
`and avoid prejudice to Petitioner in the event that Parthenon settles with the Initial
`
`Petitioners. Section 317(a) provides that an inter partes review “shall be
`
`terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner
`
`and the patent owner” unless the Board has already reached its decision on the
`
`merits. If no petitioner remains after settlement, “the Office may terminate the
`
`review.” Id. Thus, if Parthenon were to reach a settlement with each of the Initial
`
`Petitioners, the HTC IPR could terminate without proceeding to a final written
`
`decision.
`
`
`1 These limitations are consistent with previously granted joinder motions. See, e.g., Enzymotech
`Ltd. v. Neptune Techs., IPR2014-00556, Paper 19 (July 9, 2014) (agreeing to procedural
`concessions, such as “consolidated” responses); Gillette Co. v. Zond, IPR2014-01016, Paper 13
`(Nov. 10, 2014) (same); SAP Am. Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2014-00306, Paper 13 (May 19,
`2014) (same).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Indeed, if the Board terminated the HTC IPR, Petitioner would have to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`reargue the exact same arguments that the Initial Petitioners have already asserted
`
`are reasonably likely to prevail in the HTC IPR petition. Arguments related to
`
`both claim construction and validity will have to be briefed and considered again,
`
`thereby increasing the work for both Petitioner and Parthenon.
`
`The potential for inconsistency would be also heightened because Petitioner
`
`would face a higher burden before the District Court of proving the invalidity of
`
`claims 1-3, 5, 7, 13, 15, 17-21, 23-25 by clear and convincing evidence, as opposed
`
`to the lower burden here of a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(e). Having to overcome a higher burden to get the same result is by definition
`
`prejudicial to Petitioner.
`
`Consider further that if the Board permits Petitioner to join the HTC IPR,
`
`and the ’368 Patent is upheld in a final decision, Petitioner will be estopped from
`
`further challenging the validity of the patent on these grounds, avoiding
`
`duplication of Parthenon’s efforts at least as to Petitioner. See 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(e)(1). Accordingly, to avoid duplicate efforts, the possibility of
`
`inconsistencies, and prejudice to Petitioner, joinder is appropriate.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`E.
`
`Because no new grounds are advanced in the Petition, joinder will
`not prejudice Parthenon
`
`Granting joinder and permitting Petitioner to assume the understudy role
`
`will not prejudice Parthenon. Petitioner raises no issues that are not already before
`
`the Board, such that joinder would not affect the HTC IPR or the content of
`
`Parthenon’s preliminary response, when it becomes due. Petitioner’s understudy
`
`role ensures that Parthenon will not suffer any additional costs. Indeed, Petitioner
`
`will only assume the role of lead counsel if the Initial Petitioners and Parthenon
`
`each reach a settlement agreement. Petitioners have done everything conceivable
`
`to minimize the burden on the other parties in the HTC IPR in exchange for the
`
`opportunity to be a part of the HTC IPR.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368 be granted and that the
`
`proceedings be joined with HTC IPR.
`
`Although Petitioner believes that no fee is required for this Motion, the
`
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees which may be
`
`required for this Motion to Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`Dated: February 26, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Lionel M. Lavenue/
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`Registration No. 46,859
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`11955 Freedom Dr.
`Two Freedom Square
`Reston, VA 20190
`Tel: 571.203.2700
`Fax: 202.408.4400
`
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER ZTE
`USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,182,789
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.P.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that I
`
`caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b) by Federal Express
`
`delivery, on this 26th day of February, 2016 on the Patent Owner at the
`
`correspondence address of the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`David V. Carlson
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
`701 Fifth Avenue,
`Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`Alisa Anne Lipski, Esq. (alipski@azalaw.com)
`Amir H. Alavi, Esq. (aalavi@azalaw.com)
`Brian Ervin Simmons, Esq. (bsimmons@azalaw.com)
`Jamie Alan Aycock, Esq. (jamieaycock@azalaw.com)
`Justin Yee-Jin Chen, Esq. (jchen@azalaw.com)
`Kenneth Alan Young, Esq. (kyoung@azalaw.com)
`Kyril Vladimir Talanov, Esq. (ktalanov@azalaw.com)
`Masood Anjom, Esq. (manjom@azalaw.com)
`Michael Dean McBride, Esq. (mmcbride@azalaw.com)
`Scott W Clark, Esq. (sclark@azalaw.com)
`Demetrios Anaipakos, Esq. (danaipakos@azalaw.com)
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`3460 One Houston Center
`1221 McKinney Street
`Houston, TX 77010
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368
`ZTE Motion for Joinder
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ashley F. Cheung/
`Ashley F. Cheung
`Case Manager
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`Dunner, LLP
`
`12
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
