UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________
`Case No. IPR2016-______
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`_________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`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
`_________________________
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________
`Case No. IPR2016-______
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`_________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Background ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`III. Argument ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Legal Standard .............................................................................................. 2
`
`B. The Motion for Joinder Is Timely ................................................................ 3
`
`C. The Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder ........................................ 3
`
`1.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate .......................................................................... 4
`
`2. The VIZIO Petition Proposes No New Grounds of
`Unpatentability ..................................................................................... 5
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the K.J. Pretech IPR Trial
`Schedule ............................................................................................... 6
`
`4. Discovery and Briefing Can Be Simplified ......................................... 6
`
`IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013) ........................................................... 4
`
`Page(s)
`
`Hyundai Motor Co. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC,
`IPR2014-01543, Paper No. 11 (Oct. 24, 2014) .................................................... 2
`
`K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC,
`IPR2015-01868, Paper 2 (Mar. 17, 2016) ............................................................ 1
`
`K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC,
`IPR2015-01868, Paper 11 (Dec. 22, 2015)........................................................... 5
`
`K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC,
`IPR2015-01868, Paper 15 (Mar. 17, 2016) ...................................................... 2, 3
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (April 24, 2013) ......................................................... 3
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion,
`IPR2014-00898, Paper 15 (Aug. 13, 2014) .......................................................... 2
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 (Oct. 15, 2015) ........................................................... 7
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.7(a) ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Petitioner VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”) requests institution of review based on its
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (the “VIZIO Petition”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,434,974 (“the ’974 Patent”) filed herewith and joinder with the inter partes
`
`review in K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, IPR2015-
`
`01868 (the “K.J. Pretech IPR”). The VIZIO Petition is practically a copy of the
`
`petition in the K.J. Pretech IPR—the challenged claims, grounds of
`
`unpatentability, prior art, substantive arguments, and expert declaration are
`
`identical. See K.J. Pretech IPR, Paper 2 (Sept. 11, 2015) (the “K.J. Pretech
`
`Petition”). As described below, joinder is warranted because it will efficiently
`
`resolve the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’974 Patent in a single
`
`proceeding, without prejudicing the parties to the K.J. Pretech IPR or adding to the
`
`burden of the Board.
`
`II. Background
`
`On December 31, 2013, Patent Owner Innovative Display Technologies
`
`sued VIZIO for infringement of the ’974 Patent in Delaware Display Grp. LLC v.
`
`VIZIO, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02112 (D. Del.). On September 11, 2015, K.J. Pretech
`
`Co., Ltd (“K.J. Pretech”) filed the K.J. Pretech Petition. The Board instituted inter
`
`partes review based on the K.J. Pretech Petition on March 17, 2016, finding a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonable likelihood of unpatentability as to claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the
`
`’974 Patent. K.J. Pretech IPR, Institution Decision, Paper 15 at 25–26.
`
`III. Argument
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`The Board has the authority to join as a party any person who properly files
`
`a petition for inter partes review to an instituted inter partes review. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c). Normally, a petition for inter partes review filed more than one year
`
`after the petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party-in-interest or privy) is served with
`
`a complaint alleging infringement of the patent is barred. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). The one-year time bar, however, does not apply to a
`
`petition filed with a motion for joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b). A motion for joinder must be filed within one month of institution of
`
`any inter partes review for which joinder is requested. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In
`
`addition, the Board considers the following factors in deciding whether to grant a
`
`motion for joinder: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) whether the
`
`party to be joined has presented 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, e.g., Hyundai Motor Co. v.
`
`Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, IPR2014-01543, Paper No. 11 at 3 (Oct. 24, 2014);
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion, IPR2014-00898, Paper 15 at 4 (Aug. 13, 2014)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`(quoting Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (April 24,
`
`2013)).
`
`B.
`
`The Motion for Joinder Is Timely
`
` The Motion for Joinder is filed within the one-month time period from
`
`Institution in the K.J. Pretech IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122; K.J. Pretech IPR,
`
`Institution Decision, Paper 15 (Mar. 17, 2016). Specifically, one month after the
`
`Institution of the K.J. Pretech IPR is April 17, 2016, which is a Sunday. Under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.7(a), “[w]hen the day, or the last day fixed by statute or by or under this
`
`part for taking any action . . . falls on . . . Sunday . . . the action may be taken, or
`
`the fee paid, on the next succeeding business day . . . . ” See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.1
`
`(stating that § 1.7 “appl[ies] to proceedings before the Board”). Accordingly, the
`
`present Motion for Joinder is timely as it is filed the next business day after April
`
`17, 2016.
`
`C.
`
`The Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`As established below, granting joinder will not enlarge the scope of the K.J.
`
`Pretech IPR and will not negatively impact the K.J. Pretech IPR schedule or
`
`prejudice Patent Owner. But a decision denying joinder could severely prejudice
`
`Petitioner. Thus, joinder is appropriate and warranted.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`
`Joinder with the K.J. Pretech IPR is appropriate because the VIZIO Petition
`
`is virtually identical to the K.J. Pretech IPR Petition, challenging the same claims
`
`of the ’974 Patent, relying on the same expert declaration, and citing the same
`
`grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the K.J. Pretech IPR Petition.
`
`The only differences between the K.J. Pretech and VIZIO Petitions are related to
`
`formalities of different parties filing a petition. Because these proceedings are
`
`substantively identical, joinder is appropriate so that the Board can efficiently
`
`resolve all grounds in both the K.J. Pretech IPR Petition and VIZIO Petition in a
`
`single proceeding. Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper
`
`17 (July 29, 2013) at 7, 10 (noting “policy preference for joining a party that does
`
`not present new issues that might complicate or delay an existing proceeding”).
`
`Moreover, VIZIO could be prejudiced if joinder is denied. For example,
`
`absent joinder, should K.J. Pretech cease to participate in the K.J. Pretech IPR, the
`
`IPR may be terminated despite the Board having already found a reasonable
`
`likelihood of unpatentability as to claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the ’974
`
`Patent, and despite VIZIO’s continuing interest in the patentability of the ’974
`
`Patent. As noted above, the Patent Owner has asserted the ’974 Patent against
`
`VIZIO in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, with trial
`
`scheduled in 2017. If the K.J. Pretech IPR is terminated prematurely, unless
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`VIZIO’s petition is joined, the efforts and expertise of the Board in evaluating the
`
`’974 patent will be lost. VIZIO, without the benefit of the Board’s expertise, will
`
`then be required to expend substantial more resources to litigate at trial the same
`
`prior art and arguments that the Board has already acknowledged set forth a
`
`reasonable likelihood of unpatentability of the ’974 Patent claims.
`
`On the other hand, the parties to the K.J. Pretech IPR will not be prejudiced
`
`by joinder. K.J. Pretech does not oppose this Motion for Joinder. Nor will Patent
`
`Owner be prejudiced as its Patent Owner Preliminary Response filed in the K.J.
`
`Pretech IPR addresses all issues in the VIZIO Petition. See KJ Pretech IPR, Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 11 (Dec. 22, 2015). Patent Owner will not
`
`be required to provide any additional analysis or arguments in its Patent Owner
`
`Response as a result of VIZIO’s joinder. Given that VIZIO is relying on the same
`
`art, arguments, and evidence as K.J. Pretech, its joinder in an understudy role will
`
`not impact Patent Owner, put it to any additional expense, or create any delay.
`
`Accordingly, joinder is appropriate.
`
`2.
`
`The VIZIO Petition Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`As described above, the VIZIO Petition is substantively identical to the K.J.
`
`Pretech Petition, presenting the same grounds of unpatentability, challenging the
`
`same claims of the ’974 Patent, and being based on the same prior art references,
`
`the same arguments, and the same expert declaration.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the K.J. Pretech IPR Trial
`Schedule
`
`Because the VIZIO Petition is substantively identical to the KJ PreTech
`
`Petition, there are no new issues for Patent Owner to address and Patent Owner
`
`will not be required to present any additional responses or arguments. Without any
`
`new issues, there is no reason to delay or alter the trial schedule already present in
`
`the K.J. Pretech IPR, and VIZIO consents to the existing trial schedule. As stated
`
`further below, VIZIO explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, and coordinate
`
`any involvement through counsel for K.J. Pretech. As such, VIZIO’s joinder will
`
`have no impact on the proceeding or the upcoming trial.
`
`4.
`
`Discovery and Briefing Can Be Simplified
`
`The K.J. Pretech and VIZIO Petitions present substantively identical
`
`grounds of rejection, including the same art combinations against the same claims.
`
`To simplify discovery and briefing, VIZIO explicitly agrees to take an
`
`“understudy” role:
`
`(a) all filings by VIZIO in the joined proceeding will be consolidated
`with K.J. Pretech’s filings, and VIZIO will work through counsel for
`K.J. Pretech, unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve
`K.J. Pretech;
`
`(b) VIZIO shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`instituted by the Board in the K.J. Pretech IPR, or introduce any
`argument or discovery not already introduced by K.J. Pretech;
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) VIZIO shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner
`and K.J. Pretech concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`
`(d) VIZIO at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross
`examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for K.J. Pretech
`alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between Patent
`Owner and K.J. Pretech.
`
`See, e.g., Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6–7
`
`(Oct. 15, 2015). VIZIO will assume the primary role only if K.J. Pretech ceases to
`
`participate in the K.J. Pretech IPR. By accepting an “understudy” role, Patent
`
`Owner, K.J. Pretech, and VIZIO can comply with the current schedule and avoid
`
`any duplication of effort by the Board or Patent Owner.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`Based on the factors outlined above, VIZIO requests the Board institute
`
`review based on the VIZIO Petition and grant VIZIO’s Motion for Joinder with the
`
`K.J. Pretech IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 18, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Brian M. Buroker/
`
`By:
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`Blair A. Silver (Reg. No. 68,003)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`bsilver@gibsondunn.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner VIZIO, Inc.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) on the
`
`Patent Owner by Federal Express of a copy of this Motion for Joinder upon the
`
`following:
`
`Donald L. Otto, Esq.
`Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP
`1621 Euclid Avenue
`19th Floor
`Cleveland OH 44115
`Customer Number: 93969
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`Mr. Otto is being served because he is listed under the Correspondence
`
`Address for the ’974 Patent. Mr. Kimble is counsel of record for Patent Owner in
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Brian M. Buroker/
`By:
` Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8541
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`
` Attorney for Petitioner VIZIO, Inc.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01868.
`
`Dated: April 18, 2016
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
