throbber
Filed on behalf of: Unified Patents Inc.
`By: P. Andrew Riley
`Christopher Johns
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001–4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`E–mail:
`Qurio904-IPR@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, D.C., 20009
`Telephone: 202-805-8931
`E-mail:
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QURIO HOLDINGS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`___________________________________________
`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Seeking to Party Join IPR2015-02005
`
`___________________________________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner Unified
`
`Patents Inc. requests silent party joinder with the recently instituted Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904 (the “’904 patent”) in DirecTV, LLC v. Qurio
`
`Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-02005 (the “DirecTV IPR”). The original petitioners have
`
`taken no position on Unified’s joinder request at this time. Qurio Holdings, LLC
`
`opposes. This motion is timely because it is filed no later than one month after
`
`institution of the DirecTV IPR, which the Board instituted on April 4, 2016.
`
`IPR2015-02005, Paper 9 (Apr. 4, 2016); 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b).
`
`Unified requests institution of its concurrently filed Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review and silent party joinder to the instituted proceeding. Unified’s Petition is a
`
`near copy of the original DirecTV IPR petition in all material respects. Unified seeks
`
`to add no new substance, arguments, or exhibits to the dispute. In its petition,
`
`Unified copied sections IV to VII of the DirecTV IPR—the substantive sections.
`
`Unified made changes to sections I to III and VII to identify the correct petitioner
`
`and the petitioner’s wish for joinder, to supply the mandatory notices required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b), and to comply with the new word-count requirement under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24 et seq. Unified’s petition and the DirecTV IPR petition challenge the
`
`same claims of the ’904 patent on the same grounds, relying on the same prior art
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`and evidence, and includes declarations identical in substance to those submitted in
`
`the DirecTV IPR petition. Unified agrees to proceed solely on the grounds,
`
`evidence, and arguments advanced, or that will be advanced, in the DirecTV IPR as
`
`instituted, and agrees to a silent, subordinate role in those proceedings. Unified is in
`
`the process of seeking to retain the expert from the original proceeding. Thus, the
`
`petition warrants institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314, and 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) permits
`
`(and encourages) Unified’s joinder to the DirecTV IPR.
`
`If joined, Unified agrees to subordinate itself with a silent role, requesting no
`
`briefing or participation in depositions or the oral argument absent settlement by the
`
`original petitioners, thus allowing the original petitioners to lead the joined
`
`proceedings, in line with common Board practice. Thus, joinder with the DirecTV
`
`IPR would have almost no effect on either procedure or substance.
`
`Further, Unified Patents Inc. has been instituted into IPR2016-01940 on a
`
`related patent also owned by Qurio, who is represented by the same counsel, on a
`
`similar schedule, before the same Board panel. To the extent there are any facts
`
`relevant to any procedural issues raised here, such as a real party-in-interest
`
`challenge, that have not already been timely raised or are not based on facts
`
`redundant in the other proceeding, Unified agrees to stipulate to being bound in this
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPR to any procedural decisions made in IPR2016-01940, and submits additional
`
`voluntary discovery here.
`
`Unified believes that the vast majority of relevant information between this
`
`IPR and IPR2016-01940 will be the same, but has nonetheless filed updated
`
`voluntary discovery. (We note that Qurio has not asked for any additional discovery
`
`in instituted IPR2016-01940 or the denied IPR2016-01991 based on the same patent
`
`at issue here, either from Unified or from the Board.) These actions eliminate the
`
`possibility that joinder would complicate the issues if joined or might contribute to
`
`delay.
`
`Without joinder, if both the DirecTV IPR and Unified IPR are instituted on
`
`identical grounds, the two proceedings would go forward on a similar schedule but
`
`as two separate proceedings. Both the Patent Owner and the Board would need to
`
`duplicate efforts, and both Unified and the original petitioners may be prejudiced by
`
`inconsistent arguments and decisions. And a denial of joinder and denial of
`
`institution would prejudice Unified Patents, as it would lose the not insignificant
`
`filing fee and would lose its opportunity to timely resolve the patentability of the
`
`patent in question.
`
`Joinder will not unduly prejudice any party. The original petitioners have
`
`taken no position on Unified’s joinder at this time, but have filed two similar
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`petitions and motions to join days ago, on related patents.) Because joinder will not
`
`add any new substantive issues, delay the schedule, burden deponents, or increase
`
`needless filings, any additional costs on the Patent Owner would be minimal.
`
`On the other hand, denial of joinder would prejudice Petitioner. Its interests
`
`may not be adequately protected in the DirecTV IPR, particularly if the original
`
`petitioners settle with the Patent Owner.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner Qurio Holdings, Inc., asserted the ’904 patent against a number
`
`of companies: Qurio Holdings, Inc. v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 3-15-cv-01986 (N.D. CA
`
`May 4, 2015) and Qurio Holdings, Inc. v. Dish Network Corp., et al., No.
`
`3-15-cv-00930 (N.D. CA, Feb. 27, 2015). In addition to the DirecTV IPR, the Board
`
`instituted inter partes review in IPR2016-00007, Dish Network, LLC v. Qurio
`
`Holdings, LLC, on April 4, 2016, and in IPR2016-00080, on April 24, 2016. On May
`
`1, 2016, DirectTV itself filed IPR2016-00993 and IPR2016-00994, seeking to join
`
`Dish network’s IPR2016-00005 and IPR2016-00080, respectively.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Legal Standard
`The Board has discretion to join a properly filed IPR petition to an IPR
`
`proceeding, particularly where the parties seek to add new substantive issues or
`5
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`join a proceeding once they are barred from filing their own independent petition.
`
`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; Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109, Paper 15, at 3-4. The Board decides
`
`“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.
`
`As a seven-member panel noted in Target Corporation v. Destination
`
`Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508, Paper 28 (Feb. 12, 205), during the Senate’s
`
`March 2011 debates on the AIA, Senator Kyl explained that the Senate encouraged
`
`the USPTO to allow liberal “identical petition” party joinder: “The Office
`
`anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of right—if an inter partes review is
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`instituted on the basis of a petition, for example, a party that files an identical
`
`petition will be joined to that proceeding.” 157 Cong. Rec. S 1376 (daily ed. Mar.
`
`8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphasis added).
`
`B.
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate Because It Will Not Add Any New
`Grounds of Unpatentability Or Have An Impact On The
`Procedural Schedule
`
`Unified’s Petition asserts the same grounds and combinations of prior art and
`
`evidence that the Board considered in deciding whether to institute the DirecTV
`
`IPR. To simply issues and for efficiency, Unified’s petition copies the substance of
`
`the petition in IPR2015-02005 and declaration. Unified does not seek to reintroduce
`
`any grounds or claims not instituted in the DirecTV IPR or elsewhere and seeks only
`
`to join the proceeding as instituted. The Patent Owner should not require any
`
`discovery beyond that which it may need in the DirecTV IPR—nor should the Board
`
`permit any. Unified’s Petition presents no new substantive issues relative to the
`
`DirecTV IPR and does not seek to broaden the scope of the DirecTV IPR.
`
`For efficiency, Unified will voluntarily:
`
`1. Adhere to all applicable deadlines in the DirecTV IPR;
`
`2. Submit “consolidated” filings with the original petitioners, as set forth
`
`above in the statement of precise relief requested, with DirecTV drafting, arguing,
`
`and leading such filings;
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`3. Refrain from requesting or reserving any additional depositions or
`
`deposition time;
`
`4. Refrain from requesting or reserving additional oral hearing time; and
`
`5. Assume a second-chair role as long as the original petitioners remain in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`These limitations are consistent with the great majority of 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).
`
`This request is also similar to those where other third parties that have been
`
`joined to ongoing proceedings. For example, in Black Swamp IP, LLC v. VirnetX
`
`Inc., IPR2016-00167, the PTAB instituted joinder of third-party Black Swamp IP,
`
`LLC to an ongoing IPR filed by Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.,
`
`IPR2015-01047. On February 4, 2016, the Board granted the opposed joinder
`
`motion, finding that, despite different arguments in the petitions, different analyses,
`
`a lack of expert opinion, and nine previous IPR challenges, joinder was appropriate.
`
`See IPR2016-00167, Paper 12, at 4–7.
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Here, Unified’s joinder posture goes further to ease the burden on the Board
`
`and the parties. Unified has presented the identical arguments, the identical analyses,
`
`and the patent has only been the subject of a handful of challenges, all related to the
`
`parties at hand. Voluntarily, Unified has agreed to multiple procedural expedients
`
`not found in the Black Swamp IP situation. And Unified is already a party to a
`
`related proceeding on a related patent.
`
`Furthermore, any discovery or challenges with respect to real party-in-interest
`
`should have no impact on the schedule. Unified will take the supplementary measure
`
`of stipulating to be bound here by any procedural decision on real party-in-interest
`
`made in a related ongoing proceeding between the same parties, on before the same
`
`panel, on a patent in the same family. Unified has been instituted into
`
`IPR2016-01940 on a related patent also owned by Qurio. Unified stipulates that it
`
`will be bound by any decision on real party-in-interest in that IPR that has been
`
`timely raised.
`
`To the extent Qurio argues that there may be facts relevant only to this patent
`
`and this IPR joinder that would complicate the issue, Unified again submits updated
`
`voluntary discovery in the form of interrogatory responses, attesting to the fact that
`
`Unified has had no communication with any members concerning the instant patent,
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`IPRs, or strategy, and that Unified has and will continue to maintain sole and
`
`independent control and discretion throughout this proceeding. See Ex. 1027.
`
`These additional measures thus result in no delay and no additional issues
`
`here, thus eliminating the possibility that joinder would not vastly simply the issues
`
`or might contribute to delay. Joinder here will not affect the trial schedule because of
`
`these voluntary concessions by Unified.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Will Promote Efficiency By Consolidating Issues,
`Avoiding Wasteful Duplication, And Preventing Inconsistency
`
`Unified presents identical arguments and supporting evidence as the DirecTV
`
`IPR. Joinder here will simplify briefing and discovery. Given that the DirecTV IPR
`
`and Unified’s Petition address the same prior art and grounds for rejection of the
`
`same claims, joining these proceedings allows for joint submissions and discovery,
`
`further streamlining the proceedings. This should promote efficiency and conserve
`
`the Board’s and the parties’ resources.
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`D.
`The Board has previously stated that it is “mindful of a policy preference for
`
`joining a party that does not present new issues.” Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs
`
`& Bioresources, Inc., IPR2014-00556, Paper No. 19 at 6 (July 9, 2014) (citing 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“The Office
`
`anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of right–if an inter partes review is
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`instituted on the basis of a petition, for example, a party that files an identical
`
`petition will be joined to that proceeding.”)).
`
`Because Unified seeks institution solely on the grounds, evidence, and
`
`arguments advanced, or that will be advanced, in the DirecTV IPR, institution is
`
`warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and Petitioner’s joinder to the DirecTV IPR is
`
`appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). No new grounds of unpatentability are
`
`asserted. As explained above, joinder would not adversely impact the trial schedule,
`
`briefing, or discovery in the DirecTV IPR, and the remaining equities compel
`
`joinder.
`
`Unified is filing this Petition and joinder motion to ensure that the trial is
`
`completed in the event that the original petitioners reach settlement with Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`E. Without Joinder, Unified May be Prejudiced
`Unified may be prejudiced if it is not permitted to join in the DirecTV IPR.
`
`Unified was founded to deter NPE litigation on patents of questionable merit,
`
`protecting technology sectors like content delivery, the technology at issue in the
`
`’904 patent, by challenging the merits of NPE patents that it believes are
`
`unpatentable. In keeping with its purpose, Unified filed an IPR challenging all
`
`claims of the ’904 patent on the same exact grounds as the original petition. Because
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`the Board instituted IPR on all of the grounds presented in the DirecTV IPR and
`
`because Unified is not barred by statute from seeking review of the ’904 patent,
`
`Unified requests that IPR be instituted on the same grounds and that the Board join
`
`the two proceedings.
`
`If joinder is not granted and the two IPRs proceed separately but in parallel,
`
`there is a risk of inconsistent positions or decisions. With different schedules,
`
`Unified as the trailing party may be further prejudiced in that arguments or positions
`
`taken in the leading IPR may affect those in Unified’s trailing IPR. Should the
`
`petition be denied, Unified will be prejudiced through the loss of its filing fees, the
`
`loss of timing for its challenge, and a hindered ability to effectively deter NPE
`
`activity.
`
`Joining the two proceedings would be the most efficient way of handling an
`
`IPR on the ’904 patent, while allowing both the original petitioners and Unified to
`
`participate in the consolidated filings, thus preventing either party from being
`
`prejudiced.
`
`F.
`
`Joinder Is Unopposed by Petitioner and Will Not Prejudice Any
`Party
`
`The original Petitioner has not opposed Unified’s joinder request, taking no
`
`position on the joinder at this time. (Unified notes that original Petitioner DirectTV
`
`filed two similar petitions and motions to join days ago, on related patents.) Unified
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`filed its IPR Petition within one month of the Board’s decision to institute IPR.
`
`Unified’s Petition raises issues already before the Board and long known to the
`
`Patent Owner. Joining Unified’s petition with the DirecTV IPR, well on its way
`
`towards a final determination, serves the parties’ and Board’s interests.
`
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice the Patent Owner, and in fact will inure
`
`to its benefit. Without joinder, should Unified’s petition be granted, the Patent
`
`Owner would need to submit filings in two proceedings which, even if copies of
`
`each other, would require some additional time, money, and effort. Without the
`
`guarantee of joined depositions of the experts, the Patent Owner would incur the
`
`expense of duplicate depositions. Granting joinder will bind Unified to the decisions
`
`of the Board and resolve the dispute between the parties here. Denial would leave
`
`those issues unresolved and lead to further complication and waste. Thus, joining the
`
`proceedings would be more convenient for the Patent Owner. Addressing patent
`
`validity in a single proceeding with a statutory deadline serves the parties’ and
`
`Board’s interests.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Joinder will not affect the substance, procedure, or scheduling of the DirecTV
`
`IPR. Unified files this motion under the statutory joinder provisions as contemplated
`
`by the AIA. Joinder will simplify the issues and promote efficiency, justice, and
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`speed. Unified thus requests IPR on U.S. Patent No. 7,787,904 and joinder with
`
`DirecTV, LLC v. Qurio Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-02005.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /P. Andrew Riley/
`P. Andrew Riley, Reg. No. 66,290
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, DC, 20001
`Telephone: 202.408.4000
`Facsimile: 202.408.4400
`Email: Qurio904-IPR@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Floor 10
`Washington, DC 20009
`Telephone: 202-805-8931
`E-mail: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) Express
`
`Mail of a true and correct copy of this MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b) on May 4, 2016, on counsel for the Patent Owner
`
`at the correspondence addresses below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova
`106 Pinedale Springs Way
`Cary NC 27511
`
`Kirk A. Vander Leest
`kvanderleest@mcandrews-ip.com
`James P. Murphy
`jmurphy@mcandrews-ip.com
`Sharon Ann Hwang
`shwang@mcandrews-ip.com
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, P.C.
`Northwestern Atrium Center
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3400
`Chicago, IL 60661
`
`Joseph V. Mauch
`jmauch@sflaw.com
`Richard F. Munzinger
`rmunzinger@sflaw.com
`Shartsis Friese LLP
`One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00998
`
`Patent 7,787,904
`Motion for Joinder
`
`_,
`
`,
`
`
`
`/I
`/‘
`K.’
`
`5
`
`.
`
`5/; Lauren K“. Yo 11
`Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket