UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00931
`Patent 6,701,344
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00931
`Patent 6,701,344
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Statement of Facts. ...................................................... 1
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Statement of
`Material Facts. ....................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER SHOULD BE
`DENIED........................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder of the Same Party Here is Not Appropriate. ............................. 5
`
`Petitioner Is Not Entitled to a Second Bite at the Apple. ...................... 9
`
`Petitioner Is Time Barred. ................................................................... 11
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Arris Group, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2015-00530, Paper 12 (July 27, 2015) .......................................... 11
`
`Atoptech, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2015-00760, Paper 14 (Jul. 21, 2015) ......................................... 8, 9
`
`Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC. v. Gevo, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2014-00581, Paper 8 (Oct. 14, 2014) ............................................. 4
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC,
`Case No. IPR2015-01620, Paper 10 (Feb. 2, 2016) ....................................passim
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Endotach LLC,
`Case No. IPR 2014-00695, Paper 18 (Sep. 25, 2014) ................................... 7, 12
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2015-00820, Paper 12 (May 15, 2015) ..................................passim
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`Case No. IPR2015-00555, Paper 20 (Jun. 19, 2015) .................................... 5, 7, 9
`
`SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC,
`IPR2014-01485, Paper 13 (Mar. 20, 2015) ...................................................... 6, 9
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case No. IPR2014-00508, Paper 31 (Feb. 12, 2015) ........................................... 8
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC,
`IPR2015-00262, Paper 10 (Jan. 29, 2015) ...................................................... 7, 11
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................... 1, 4, 5, 7, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner, Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Acceleration Bay” or “Patent
`
`Owner”), respectfully requests that the Board deny Petitioner’s1 Motion for
`
`Joinder. Petitioner’s Motion and its petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,701,344 (the “‘344 Patent”) filed concurrently therewith, are not only time
`
`barred, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), but also represent Petitioner’s attempt to
`
`obtain a “second bite at the apple.” In particular, and as outlined herein, Petitioner
`
`seeks to utilize the Board’s previous institution decisions as a roadmap to remedy
`
`challenges that they either failed to raise or were unsuccessful in presenting in its
`
`two prior petitions regarding the ‘344 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s Statement of Facts.
`
`Over a year ago, Patent Owner filed patent infringement litigations
`
`against Petitioners asserting the ’344 Patent and other related patents. See
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00228-RGA
`
`(D. Del., filed Mar. 11, 2015); Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case
`
`No. 1:15-cv-00282-RGA (D. Del., filed Mar. 30, 2015); and Acceleration Bay LLC
`
`
`1 “Petitioner” refers collectively to Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc.,
`
`Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-RGA (D.
`
`Del. filed Apr. 13, 2015).
`
`2.
`
`On September 25, 2015, Petitioner filed two petitions for inter partes
`
`review of the ’344 Patent – specifically, IPR2015-01970 and IPR2015-01972. The
`
`Board instituted trial in both proceedings on limited grounds. See generally,
`
`IPR015-01970, Paper 9; IPR2015-01972, Paper 8.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner seeks joinder to IPR2015-01972 (the “First Petition”) where
`
`the Board instituted proceedings against claims 1-11 and 16-19 based on an
`
`obviousness ground under the non-patent reference, Shoubridge.2 IPR2015-01972,
`
`Paper 8.
`
`4.
`
`In the institution decision for the First Petition, the Board rejected
`
`Petitioner’s ground challenging claims 1-12 and 16-19 as obvious over the
`
`combination of DirectPlay3 and Shoubridge. IPR2015-01972, Paper 8.
`
`5.
`
`Incredibly, Petitioner acknowledges that its new petition takes into
`
`consideration both Patent Owner’s response to the First Petition and the Board’s
`
`guidance in its institution decision for the same, both of which address the two
`
`
`2 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Networks, in 3
`
`IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMC’NS CONF. REC. 1381-86 (Montreal, 1997).
`
`3 Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX, (Microsoft Press, 1998).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`prior art references Petitioner again relies upon in the instant petition. See Motion
`
`at 10.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Statement of Material
`Facts.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, Patent Owner hereby responds to the “listing
`
`of facts” provided in Petitioner’s Motion. Motion at 3-4.
`
`A. Admitted.
`
`B. Admitted.
`
`C. Admitted with respect to the date of filing of Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response on December 30, 2015 in the First Petition.
`
`Denied with respect to the narrow representation of Patent Owner’s
`
`argument regarding the alleged motivation to combine DirectPlay
`
`with Shoubridge. Motion at 4.
`
`D. Admitted.
`
`E. Admitted with respect to the grounds on which the Board instituted
`
`inter partes review in the First Petition. Denied with respect to the
`
`narrow representation of the Board’s reasoning for declining to
`
`institute “review on obviousness grounds based on the combination of
`
`DirectPlay and Shoubridge.” Motion at 4.
`
`F.
`
`Denied.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`G. Admitted.
`
`III. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`Petitioner’s Motion should be denied because it impermissibly seeks to use
`
`the Board’s decision in the First Petition “as a roadmap to remedy deficiencies in
`
`[its] earlier petition.” LG Electronics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies ULC, Case No.
`
`IPR2015-01620, Paper 10 at 7-8 (Feb. 2, 2016). The Board has rejected similar
`
`joinder attempts by petitioners seeking to circumvent the rules particularly where,
`
`absent joinder, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) would bar the underlying petition. Butamax
`
`Advanced Biofuels LLC. v. Gevo, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00581, Paper 8 at 12-13
`
`(Oct. 14, 2014) (“the four obviousness grounds are ‘second bites at the apple,’
`
`which use our prior decision as a roadmap to remedy [petitioner’s] prior, deficient
`
`challenge”); Samsung Electronics Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, Case No.
`
`IPR2015-00820, Paper 12 at 4 (May 15, 2015) (“[A] case where Petitioner seeks to
`
`use our Decision to Institute . . . as a guide to remedy deficiencies in the earlier
`
`filed petition, i.e. a ‘second bite at the apple.’”).4 Petitioner is therefore “t[ying] up
`
`the Board’s limited resources” as it pursues a “second chance” at a previous
`
`petition which was “partially inadequate.” LG Electronics, Inc., IPR2015-01620,
`
`
`4 Incredibly, Petitioner’s counsel represented petitioners in Samsung Electronics,
`
`IPR2015-00820.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`Paper 10 at 8 (citations omitted). Granting Petitioner’s Motion and underlying
`
`petition would only encourage similarly situated petitioners to inundate the Board
`
`with inadequate initial petitions with the expectation that insufficiencies could be
`
`addressed in a later petition under a joinder motion. Furthermore, because
`
`Petitioner was served with complaints in the underlying patent infringement
`
`actions over one year before the filing of the instant petition, the petition should
`
`also be barred as untimely in light of the futility of Petitioner’s Motion. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 315(b), (c); LG Electronics, Inc., IPR2015-01620, Paper 10 at 8.
`
`A.
`
`Joinder of the Same Party Here is Not Appropriate.
`
`Whether to grant joinder must be determined on a “case-by-case basis,
`
`taking into account the particular facts of each case” and may be “authorized when
`
`warranted, but the decision to grant joinder is discretionary.” LG Electronics, Inc.,
`
`Paper 10 at 5 (citation omitted). Where the same petitioner is seeking a “second
`
`chance,” the Board must consider whether such a petition would “tie[] up the
`
`Board’s limited resources” particularly in light of its effects on “every proceeding”
`
`going forward. Samsung Electronics Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP, Case
`
`No. IPR2015-00555, Paper 20 at 8 (Jun. 19, 2015).
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s representation, joinder is impermissible here under a
`
`proper interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and has been denied in previous cases
`
`where petitioners in both petitions were the same. Compare Motion at 7 with
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. IPR2015-00820, Paper 12 at 4 (“With respect to the
`
`same party joinder, we recognize that different Board panels have come to contrary
`
`positions on this issue.”). The statute “provides for the joinder of parties only, not
`
`issues, and does not contemplate joinder by someone who is already a party . . .
`
`The statute does not refer to the joining of a petition or new patentability
`
`challenges presented therein, nor does the statute refer to the joining of a new issue
`
`(as opposed to a person).” SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-01485, Paper 13 at 3-4 (Mar. 20, 2015) (emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, the facts here also unequivocally demonstrate that the Motion
`
`must be denied. Petitioner is seeking to challenge claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent
`
`relying on the same prior art references and combinations relied upon in the First
`
`Petition. In particular, the Board instituted the First Petition based on Petitioner’s
`
`challenge of claims 1-11 and 16-19 as obvious over Shoubridge but denied
`
`institution based on its challenge of claims 1-12 and 16-19 as obvious over the
`
`combination of DirectPlay and Shoubridge. See generally, First Petition, Paper 8
`
`(Mar. 24, 2016). The same prior art references and grounds are the basis for
`
`Petitioner’s new petition. However, a “petitioner is not entitled to multiple
`
`challenges against a patent” and in “determining whether to institute or order a
`
`proceeding . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition
`
`or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`previously were presented to the Office.” Samsung Electronics Co., IPR2015-
`
`00555, Paper 20 at 7-8 (emphasis added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)).
`
`In addition, Petitioner has failed to provide any reasonable justification for
`
`failing to raise the grounds in the current petition in the First Petition which relied
`
`on the same prior art references. Samsung Electronics Co., IPR2015-00555, Paper
`
`20 at 7-8 (denying joinder where “Petitioner . . . present[ed] no argument or
`
`evidence” that the basis for the new grounds were “not known or available” at the
`
`time of filing the instituted IPR and are relying on “the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments”). Where “a § 315(b) bar would apply absent joinder,”
`
`the Board “hesitate[s] to allow a petitioner a second bite one month after institution
`
`in a first case, at the expense of . . . potential prejudice[] to Patent Owner, absent a
`
`good reason for doing so.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Endotach LLC, Case No. IPR 2014-
`
`00695, Paper 18 at 4 (Sep. 25, 2014). In fact, Petitioner alleges here that the new
`
`grounds represent a “relatively minor additional claim limitation” and do not deny
`
`that they could have reasonably been included in the First Petition. Motion at 9;
`
`see also e.g., Toyota Motor Corp. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2015-
`
`00262, Paper 10 at 6 (Jan. 29, 2015)(“Petitioner could have presented in the earlier
`
`petition the grounds and arguments it now asserts, but it did not do so.”).
`
`Furthermore, this is not a “case of changed circumstance—such as new
`
`claims being asserted during district court litigation or new threats of
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`infringement—that would make joinder an equitable remedy.” Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., IPR2015-00820, Paper 12 at 4 (citation omitted). Petitioner has
`
`not pointed to (because they cannot) any “changed circumstances” to justify
`
`joinder let alone institution of its petition. Incredibly, the case Petitioner relies
`
`upon in support of its position is inapposite. Specifically, in Target Corp. v.
`
`Destination Maternity Corp., Case No. IPR2014-00508, Paper 31 at 2-3 (Feb. 12,
`
`2015), the petitioner raised a new reference, in its second petition, that was
`
`previously unknown to it and was only disclosed to petitioner by the patent owner
`
`after the institution decision in the first proceeding. Id.; see also id., Paper 3 at 2-3
`
`(Mar. 14, 2014). Here, Petitioner was not only aware of claim 12 but also
`
`unsuccessfully challenged it in the First Petition. Atoptech, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.,
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00760, Paper 14 at 8-9 (Jul. 21, 2015) (“[W]e are mindful that
`
`permitting second chances without constraints undermines judicial efficiency by
`
`expending the Board’s limited resources on issues that were not presented
`
`adequately the first time around.”).
`
`Therefore, because Petitioner has disregarded the rules and is unable to
`
`provide any justifiable “reason that merits a second chance,” its Motion must be
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`denied. Samsung Electronics Co., IPR2015-00555, Paper 20 at 8.5
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Is Not Entitled to a Second Bite at the Apple.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion, and underlying petition, are unquestionably an attempt
`
`to obtain a “second bite at the apple.” Petitioner raised the same grounds presented
`
`here as they did in the First Petition – that is, obviousness over Shoubridge and
`
`obviousness over the combination of Shoubridge and DirectPlay – yet fail to
`
`explain why they did not raise the grounds now underlying its new petition in
`
`either of its previous petitions against the same petition.
`
`Petitioner’s new petition, therefore, is directed at “deficiencies” made clear
`
`by the Board’s institution decision in the First Petition. Samsung Electronics,
`
`IPR2015-00820, Paper 12 at 4; see also Apotech, Inc., IPR2015-00760, Paper 14 at
`
`8 (denying “Petitioner[’s] requesting a second chance to address the
`
`unpatentability of claims [] over the same prior art at issue in the First Petition”).
`
`
`5 The Board has also regularly denied similar motions for joinder noting that the
`
`same party serving as petitioner in both petitions “need not [be] address[ed] []
`
`because [the Board is] not persuaded that the circumstances in th[e] proceeding
`
`warrant Joinder regardless of whether same party joinder is permissible.” LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., IPR2015-01620, Paper 10 at 7; see also e.g., Skyhawke Tech.,
`
`LLC, IPR2014-01485, Paper 13 at 3.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`Petitioner insinuates that its “new grounds” are attempting to rectify what they
`
`inappropriately describe as the Board’s adoption of “Patent Owner’s
`
`mischaracterizations of the prior art.” Motion at 2, 8, 10, 12. This is improper.
`
`Petitioner is attempting, in a new petition, to address the Board’s reliance on
`
`portions of the Patent Owner’s preliminary response in denying certain grounds in
`
`the First Petition. This is precisely the type of “second chance” that the Board has
`
`repeatedly rejected even where the primary reference and expert relied upon are the
`
`same. See, e.g., LG Electronics, Inc., IPR2015-01620, Paper 10 at 7-8.
`
`Petitioner also misleadingly represents that Ground 2 in the instant petition –
`
`that is “Shoubridge in view of DirectPlay” – is “distinct from a previously-
`
`asserted ground (obviousness of Claim 12 over DirectPlay and Shoubridge) that
`
`was denied institution.” Motion at 2. Simply re-wording the same obviousness
`
`combination does not represent a “new ground.” Similarly, Petitioner’s reliance on
`
`its other instituted petition against the ‘344 patent, for which it does not seek
`
`joinder, as justifying its new claims regarding the obviousness combination of
`
`DirectPlay and Shoubridge is of no consequence. Motion at 4. Petitioner cannot
`
`rely on an instituted petition, to which it does not seek joinder, as a basis for its
`
`attempt to seek a second bite at the apple. Incredibly, the fact that Petitioner cites
`
`to two instituted decisions relating to the same patent only further reveals the
`
`absurdity underlying its undeniable attempt to rectify the deficiencies revealed by
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`the Board’s decision in both previous petitions.
`
`
`
`Petitioner has also failed, as discussed supra, to “demonstrate[] a reasoned
`
`justification for its failure to assert in the First Petition the obviousness challenges
`
`it asserts in this Petition.” LG Electronics, Inc., IPR2015-01620, Paper 10 at 10.
`
`The Board has rejected similar attempts by petitioners to raise new claims, prior art
`
`references or grounds for which they “fail[ed] to provide any basis for why [they]
`
`could not have challenged the additional claims in the First Petition.” Arris Group,
`
`Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC, Case No. IPR2015-00530, Paper 12 at 8-9 (July 27,
`
`2015); see also e.g., Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2015-00262, Paper 10 at 6
`
`(Petitioner failed to “explain[] sufficiently why the [first] petition did not contain
`
`the grounds and argument set forth in the Petition in this proceeding.”).
`
`Petitioner’s failure, therefore, to “articulate[] [a] persuasive reason why” it did not
`
`previously raise these new grounds requires that the Motion be denied because
`
`Petitioner is simply “seek[ing] to use [the Board’s] Decision to Institute . . . as a
`
`guide to remedy deficiencies in the earlier filed petition, i.e. a ‘second bite at the
`
`apple.’” Samsung Electronics Co., IPR2015-00820, Paper 12 at 4.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Is Time Barred.
`
`As described supra, Petitioner’s Motion and related petition represent an
`
`attempt by Petitioner to have a “second chance” after gaining insight into not only
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`Patent Owner’s positions but also the Board’s decision in the First Petition.
`
`Because the Motion should be denied, the underlying petition is time barred.
`
`Petitioner was aware of and even challenged claim 12 in the First Petition
`
`and related petition, IPR2015-01970. Petitioner’s Motion, therefore, is an attempt
`
`to circumvent the one-year bar by filing the new petition on grounds that it could
`
`have and should have raised in its two previously filed petitions challenging the
`
`same patent. The Board has repeatedly denied joinder where similarly-situated
`
`petitioners sought to rely on an institution decision to remedy challenges that were
`
`unsuccessfully advanced in the first petition, especially where the § 315(b) bar
`
`would apply absent joinder. See, e.g., LG Electronics, Inc., IPR2015-01620, Paper
`
`10 at 11; Medtronic, Inc., IPR2014-00695, Paper 18 at 3-4. Petitioner’s underlying
`
`petition is therefore time barred only further demonstrating why its Motion must be
`
`denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner fails to meet its burden in establishing that discretionary joinder is
`
`appropriate. Petitioner evades the fact that it is seeking a “second bite at the apple”
`
`and simultaneously fails to provide any justification for why they did not raise the
`
`grounds in the instant petition in the two previously filed petitions against the same
`
`patent. For the foregoing reasons, Acceleration Bay respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`Dated: May 25, 2016
`
`(Case No. IPR2016-00931)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`Michael Lee (Reg. No. 63,941)
`mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.752.1700 Fax: 212.715.8000
`
`Shannon Hedvat (Reg. No. 68,417)
`shedvat@kramerlevin.com
`Jeffrey Price (Reg. No. 69,141)
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212.715.9185 Fax: 212.715.8382
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`IPR2016-00931 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder
`
`was served on May 25, 2016, by filing this document through the Patent Review
`
`Processing System as well as delivering it via electronic mail upon the following
`
`counsel of record for Petitioners:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20005-3948
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`ActivisionBlizzardPTABService@ropesgray.com
`
`Andrew Thomases
`ROPES & Gray LLP
`1900 University Ave., 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`14
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
