`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`FACEBOOK INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,694,657
`Issue Date: April 8, 2014
`Title: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`Case No. IPR2016-011551
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`1
` Case IPR2017-00622 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 2
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Exceeded its Statutory Authority and Abused Its
`Discretion by Maintaining the Microsoft IPR Without a
`Petitioner for Three Weeks After Terminating Sole-Petitioner
`Microsoft. .............................................................................................. 7
`
`The Board Exceeded its Statutory Authority and Abused its
`Discretion When It Instituted the Joinder Petition and Joined
`Facebook to the Microsoft IPR with Respect to Only a Subset
`of Claims. ............................................................................................ 10
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 13
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC
`(IPR2013-00036) (Jan 21, 2014) .......................................................................... 9
`
`Dell Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomms. Research Inst.,
`Case No. IPR 2015-00549 (PTAB Mar. 26, 2015) ............................................ 13
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wash., 334 F.3d
`1264 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`Interthinx Inc. v. CoreLogic Solutions LLC
`(CBM2012-00007) (Nov. 12, 2013) ..................................................................... 9
`
`Manhattan General Equip. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
`297 U.S. 129, 134 (1936) .................................................................................... 10
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co.,
`Case IPR2017-00962, slip op. (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) ........................................ 5
`
`Stevens v. Tamai,
`366 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 6
`
`ZTE Corporation et al. v. Adaptix Inc.,
`IPR2015-01184 (PTAB Jul. 24, 2015) ............................................................... 12
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-318............................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................... 6, 10, 11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a) ................................................................................. 5, 7, 8, 10, 11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a) ........................................................................................... 7, 8, 9
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360-02 ........................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Exhibit Name
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj, Ph.D.
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition
`(1994)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition
`(1997)
`
`Macmillan Encyclopedia of Computers (Gary G. Bitter
`ed., Macmillan Publ. Co. 1992)
`
`Excerpt from David W. South, The Computer and
`Information Science and Technology Abbreviations and
`Acronyms Dictionary, CRC Press, May 6, 1994
`
`2006
`
`Declaration of Jaime G. Carbonell, Ph.D.
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`Deposition Transcript of Christopher M. Schmandt,
`dated February 22, 2017
`
`Deposition Transcript of Robert Stein, dated March 1,
`2017
`
`Deposition Transcript of Judith S. Donath, dated
`February 23, 2017
`
`IDS filed Jan. 14, 2017 for U.S. Patent Application No.
`14/246,965
`
`Bob Metcalfe, Predicting the Internet’s catastrophic
`collapse and ghost sites galore in 1996, InfoWorld,
`p.61 (Dec. 4, 1995)
`
`AOL could strike gold with IM patent, CNN.com. (Dec.
`19, 2002)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,449,344 to Yair Goldfiner et al.
`
`Decision Denying Institution in IPR2016-01137
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360-02, Proceedings and Debates of
`the 112th Congress, First Session (March 8, 2011)
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This request concerns two issues of first impression. First, upon terminating
`
`the sole-petitioner from Case No. IPR2016-01155 (the “Microsoft IPR”) on May
`
`10, 2017, the Board invoked its discretion to hold the review “in abeyance.” Paper
`
`31. Consequently, the Microsoft IPR was held open with no petitioner until June
`
`1, 2017, when the Board instituted and joined Case No. IPR2017-00622 (the
`
`“Facebook IPR”) with the Microsoft IPR. Paper 32. Patent Owner submits that
`
`the Board holds no statutory authority or discretion to suspend a review under such
`
`circumstances and that, upon termination of Microsoft, the Board should have
`
`either terminated the Microsoft IPR or proceeded to a final written decision.
`
`Patent Owner further submits that granting joinder does not constitute, nor is it the
`
`equivalent of, proceeding to a final written decision.
`
`Second, the Board did not have authority to join the Facebook IPR to the
`
`instituted Microsoft IPR. Facebook’s petition included only portions of the
`
`instituted grounds and sought joinder on two claims of the approximately 150
`
`instituted claims of the Microsoft IPR. Patent Owner submits that seeking joinder
`
`on a small subset of instituted claims does not constitute an “identical petition” and
`
`that such a finding is inappropriate as inconsistent with the relevant statutes,
`
`Congressional intent, and the Board’s representative decisions.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner submits respectfully that the Board exceeded its
`
`
`
`statutory authority and abused its discretion as to both issues and requests
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`rehearing, reconsideration, and reversal on both issues.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`On June 3, 2016, now-terminated petitioner Microsoft Corporation filed a
`
`petition for inter partes review in Case No. IPR2016-01155 (the “Microsoft IPR”)
`
`of claims 1, 2, 18, 27, 35, 43, 51, 65, 79, 93, 100, 108, 114, 126, 138, 150, 156,
`
`168, 170, 172, 176, 178, 180, 182-190, 202, 208, 214, 220, 226, 238, 250, 262,
`
`268, 274, 280, 292, 304, 316, 322, 328, 334, 336, 340, 342, 344, 346, 348, 350,
`
`352-354, 362, 366, 370, 374, 378, 386, 394, 402, 406, 410, 414, 422, 430, 438,
`
`442, 450, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462, 464-466, 476, 481, 486, 491, 496, 505,
`
`515, 525, 530, 535, 545, 555, 565, 570, 580, 582, 584, 586, 588, 590, 592, 594,
`
`596-598, 606-607, 615-617, 619, 621, 622, 624-626, 628, 630, 632-634, 636, 638,
`
`640-642, 644, 646, and 648-671 (collectively, the “Instituted Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,694,657 (“the ’657 Patent”). Paper 1. On December 8, 2016, the
`
`Board instituted the inter partes review on all Instituted Claims, but only expressly
`
`discussed claims 1 and 597 in that decision. Paper 12.
`
`On January 7, 2017, Petitioner Facebook Inc. sought to join the Microsoft
`
`IPR by filing a petition for inter parties review (the “Joinder Petition”) in Case No.
`
`IPR2017-00622 (the “Facebook IPR”) and a motion for joinder. Facebook IPR,
`
`Papers 2 and 3. Petitioner did not seek to join the Microsoft IPR in its entirety.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`While citing no authority to do so, Petitioner sought joinder as to two claims only:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`189 and 465. Facebook IPR, Paper 3 at 1.
`
`In its February 6, 2017 opposition, Patent Owner explained why the Board
`
`should deny joinder. Facebook IPR, Paper 7. Among the multitude of reasons,
`
`Patent Owner submitted arguments explaining that the petitions were not identical
`
`or substantially similar. Id. As is clear from the face of the Joinder Petition and
`
`the accompanying motion for joinder, Patent Owner noted that Petitioner sought
`
`joinder only as to claims 189 and 465 of the ’657 Patent. Facebook IPR, Paper 7 at
`
`1. Patent Owner’s opposition further explained how the differing scopes of the
`
`petitions presented new issues: Petitioner added 18 pages of arguments addressing
`
`claim 189, which covered a different aspect of the claimed invention than claim 1,
`
`i.e. censoring from sending data versus censoring from receiving data. Id. at 2.
`
`Patent Owner also submitted a preliminary response on April 17, 2017, in
`
`which Patent Owner articulated a number of reasons for denying institution of the
`
`Joinder Petition. Facebook IPR, Paper 9. Again, Patent Owner pointed out that
`
`claims 189 and 465 were the only claims challenged in the Joinder Petition. Id. at
`
`1, 14.
`
`On an April 19, 2017 conference call, Patent Owner and sole-petitioner
`
`Microsoft Corporation informed the Board of a settlement agreement between the
`
`parties and requested the Board’s authorization to file a joint motion to terminate
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`the Microsoft IPR. Paper 29. During this call, the Board expressly pre-authorized
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`the joint motion to terminate the Microsoft IPR as to both Patent Owner and
`
`Microsoft. Id.
`
`On April 24, 2017, Patent Owner and sole-petitioner Microsoft Corporation
`
`filed a joint motion to terminate the Microsoft IPR, citing a settlement agreement
`
`between the parties as the reason for termination. Paper 29.
`
`On May 4, 2017, the Board held a conference call with Patent Owner and
`
`Facebook to discuss the impacts of the motion to terminate the Microsoft IPR on
`
`the Joinder Petition. At this point, the facts were materially different from when
`
`Patent Owner filed its opposition to joinder in February––Microsoft had sought
`
`termination, which raised the possibility that no active petitioner would be able to
`
`maintain many of the Instituted Claims. During this conference call, the Board
`
`appreciated this unexpected scenario and commented that these facts raised an
`
`issue of “first impression.” More specifically, the issue of first impression was that
`
`Facebook could join only on a small subset of the approximately 150 instituted
`
`claims when the original petition had been terminated. Following the conference
`
`call, Patent Owner asked the Board for supplemental briefing on this issue of first
`
`impression, but the Board declined such briefing.
`
`On May 10, 2017, the Board reached a decision on the joint motion to
`
`terminate the Microsoft IPR, granting termination as to the sole-petitioner
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Microsoft only. Paper 31. Citing 35 U.S.C. 317(a), the Board exercised its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`discretion to “hold in abeyance” its rulings on termination as to Windy City. Paper
`
`31 at 3. From May 10, 2017 to June 1, 2017, no petitioner remained active in the
`
`Microsoft IPR. During this period, the Board did not proceed, nor did it indicate
`
`its intention to proceed, to a final written decision.
`
`On June 1, 2017, the Board decided to institute the Facebook IPR and
`
`granted Facebook’s request to join the Microsoft IPR. Paper 32. The Board
`
`instituted and joined only as to claims 189 and 465 of the ’657 Patent. Paper 32.
`
`Analyzing joinder first, the Board stated that the Joinder Petition “is substantively
`
`the same as the Microsoft Petition as to claims 189 and 465.” (Emphasis added.)
`
`Paper 10 at 3. To support its position, the Board cited to Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., Case IPR2017-00962, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016)
`
`(Paper 12), stating “we routinely grant[] motions for joinder where the party
`
`seeking joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the
`
`existing proceeding.” The Board did not address how the new arguments raised by
`
`Facebook could affect joinder. In the same institution decision, the Board
`
`addressed the issue of Petitioner’s challenge to claims 189 and 465 alone. Paper
`
`10 at 15. Acknowledging the difference in challenged claims from the Microsoft
`
`IPR and the Facebook IPR, the Board stated that Microsoft was no longer the
`
`“petitioner” after termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317, and that “Petitioner Facebook
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`now is the ‘the petitioner’ for the purposes of § 318(a).” The Board then
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`concluded, without explanation, that a final written decision only as to claims 189
`
`and 465 was “required by § 318(a).”
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“When rehearing a decision on petition, the panel will review the decision
`
`for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). This request for rehearing “must
`
`specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or
`
`overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion,
`
`an opposition, or reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “An abuse of discretion occurs
`
`when the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on
`
`an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or
`
`(4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally
`
`base its decision.” Stevens v. Tamai, 366 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wash., 334 F.3d 1264,
`
`1266-67 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`“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…” 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). In the case of
`
`termination resulting from settlement, “[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes
`
`review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`under section 318(a).” 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Board Exceeded its Statutory Authority and Abused Its
`Discretion by Maintaining the Microsoft IPR Without a
`Petitioner for Three Weeks After Terminating Sole-Petitioner
`Microsoft.
`
`The Board is statutorily limited to two options when no petitioner remains in
`
`a proceeding: “[i]f no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may
`
`terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board has no statutory power to continue an inter partes
`
`review with no petitioner by holding the patent owner’s authorized motion to
`
`terminate “in abeyance” so that the Board may add a new petitioner at a later date,
`
`and the cited regulation does not confer on the Board the discretion to expand its
`
`own statutory powers.
`
`After pre-authorizing the joint motion to terminate the Microsoft IPR as to
`
`both Patent Owner and Microsoft during the April 19, 2017 conference call, the
`
`Board granted termination only as to Microsoft. Paper 31 at 3. In doing so, the
`
`Board interpreted § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a) as granting the “discretion to
`
`terminate as to Patent Owner or to proceed with trial.” Id. The Board then used
`
`this interpretation as its basis to rule as follows: “[i]n exercise of this discretion, we
`
`hold in abeyance our rulings on the Motions to Terminate as to Windy City until
`
`we have ruled on Facebook’s Petitions and Motions for Joinder…” Id. This
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`exercise of discretion made it possible for the Board to suspend indefinitely the
`
`Microsoft IPR. The Board identified this suspension of the review as part of its
`
`factual and legal bases for granting joinder and institution on the Joinder Petition
`
`and inserting Facebook as the petitioner in the Microsoft IPR. Paper 32 at 2, 16.
`
`The Board exceeded its statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and
`
`abused its discretion. As noted above, the Board stated that it could use its
`
`“discretion to terminate as to Patent Owner or to proceed with trial.” Paper 31 at 3.
`
`This is incorrect and is unsupported by the cited statutes or the Board’s rules.
`
`Section 317(a) states that when no petitioner remains in the inter partes
`
`review, “the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision
`
`under section 318(a).” Upon termination of the sole-petitioner Microsoft, the
`
`Board’s first option was to terminate the review itself, but the Board did not do so.
`
`The Board expressly terminated Microsoft as the sole petitioner in the proceedings
`
`but held the review open by holding “in abeyance” its ruling on whether to
`
`terminate Windy City. Paper 31 at 3. The Board also did not invoke its second
`
`option to proceed to final written decision.
`
`The Board’s decision not to terminate the review or proceed to final written
`
`decision was based on a misinterpretation of section 317(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.74(a). These authorities do not grant the Board “discretion to terminate as to
`
`Patent Owner or to proceed with the trial” because neither the statute nor the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`regulation states that Board may “proceed with the trial” once there is no petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`in the inter partes review. If the Board does not terminate the proceeding, the
`
`statute confers on the Board the sole option to issue a final written decision as to
`
`patentability based on the Board’s powers to independently determine any question
`
`of patentability. 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a). See Interthinx Inc. v. CoreLogic Solutions
`
`LLC (CBM2012-00007), Paper 47, p. 2 (Nov. 12, 2013); Blackberry Corp. v.
`
`Mobilemedia Ideas LLC (IPR2013-00036), Paper 64, p. 2 (Jan 21, 2014). If
`
`Congress had intended to permit the Board to hold proceedings with no petitioner
`
`open “in abeyance,” it would have expressly granted that option to the Board, and
`
`would have also permitted substitution of parties in the context of settlement. In
`
`the absence of a statutory mandate, the Board was without the authority to hold this
`
`petition open.
`
`The text of 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a) lends no support the Board’s decision. The
`
`entirety of the cited portion of that regulation is as follows:
`
`(a) Board role. The parties may agree to settle any issue in a
`
`proceeding, but the Board is not a party to the settlement and
`
`may independently determine any question of jurisdiction,
`
`patentability, or Office practice.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a). This section makes clear that an agreement between parties
`
`to settle an issue does not prevent the Board from independently ruling on any
`
`issue of “jurisdiction, patentability, or Office practice.” This provision does not
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`purport to expand the options available to the Board under section 317(a) by giving
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`the Board discretion to hold open an inter partes review with no petitioner and
`
`proceed to trial. To read this regulation as conferring broad discretionary powers
`
`inconsistent with the statutory scheme would render the regulation a nullity. As
`
`the Supreme Court has held:
`
`The power of an administrative officer or board to administer a
`
`federal statute and to prescribe rules and regulations to that end
`
`is not the power to make law, for no such power can be
`
`delegated by Congress, but the power to adopt regulations to
`
`carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the
`
`statute. A regulation which does not do this, but operates to
`
`create a rule out of harmony with the statute, is a mere nullity.
`
`Manhattan General Equip. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 297 U.S.
`
`129, 134 (1936) (citations omitted).
`
`Accordingly, the Board had no statutory authority to suspend the Microsoft
`
`IPR without a petitioner for three weeks, and the Board abused its discretion when
`
`it acted outside the scope of the options provided by section 317(a) in order to later
`
`join Facebook.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Exceeded its Statutory Authority and Abused its
`Discretion When It Instituted the Joinder Petition and Joined
`Facebook to the Microsoft IPR with Respect to Only a Subset of
`Claims.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), “[i]f the Director institutes an inter partes review,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`review any person who properly files a petition under section 311…” (Emphasis
`
`added.) For the purposes of joinder, it is clear and unambiguous that “that inter
`
`partes review” means the instituted inter partes review. Nowhere does the statute
`
`provide authority or discretion to join a party to a portion of an inter partes
`
`review, e.g., a subset of individual claims that does not constitute the full scope of
`
`a ground for relief. For several reasons, the Board exceeded its statutory authority
`
`and abused its discretion when it joined Facebook to the Microsoft IPR.
`
`As a preliminary matter, the Board erred when it granted joinder to the
`
`Microsoft IPR because the Board should have terminated the review or proceeded
`
`to a written decision, as discussed in subsection IV-A above. Joining Facebook
`
`does not cure the Board’s error of holding the proceeding open without a petitioner
`
`in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). Accordingly, the Board’s joinder and
`
`institution determinations lack any legal foundation.
`
`Second, the Board’s discretion is statutorily limited to joining a Petition to
`
`an instituted review. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). The Board’s discretion does not extend
`
`to partially joining an instituted review, such as by selecting a subset of claims or
`
`even a portion of a certain ground. This position is supported by the statutory
`
`language of 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-318, where Congress expressly distinguished the
`
`term review from the terms claim and ground. Moreover, the legislative history of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`joinder and its intended uses are clear. Congress envisioned explicitly two
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`scenarios: (1) joining a party with an “identical petition” to an instituted review in
`
`full so that the joined party can participate in arguments and briefing; and
`
`(2) allowing a party to present additional validity challenges. The Board did not
`
`pursue either of these permissible options. The relevant Congressional Record
`
`reads:
`
`Sections 315(c) and 325(c) allow joinder of inter partes and post-grant
`
`reviews. The Office anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of
`
`right-if an inter partes review is instituted on the basis of a petition,
`
`for example, a party that files an identical petition will be joined to
`
`that proceeding, and thus allowed to file its own briefs and make its
`
`own arguments. If a party seeking joinder also presents additional
`
`challenges to validity that satisfy the threshold for instituting a
`
`proceeding, the Office will either join that party and its new
`
`arguments to the existing proceeding, or institute a second proceeding
`
`for the patent. The Director is given discretion, however, over whether
`
`to allow joinder.
`
`See 157 Cong. Rec. S1360-02, 157 Cong. Rec. S1360-02, S1376 (Ex. 2015 at 34)
`
`(emphasis added). Indeed, the Board has kept to this requirement quite literally,
`
`and has often denied joinder and institution even when an otherwise identical
`
`petition was filed merely because the parties relied on a different expert to support
`
`the joinder petition. See, e.g., ZTE Corporation et al. v. Adaptix Inc., IPR2015-
`
`01184, Paper 10. Here, the Joinder Petition is neither identical nor substantially
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`similar to the original petition, as the Joinder Petition covers only 2 claims of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`Microsoft IPR’s approximately 150 claims, and the Joinder Petition includes new
`
`arguments for those two claims.
`
`In a representative decision, the Board has denied a petitioner joinder “with
`
`grounds that are limited to a small subset of the ongoing trial” and “to assert a
`
`ground partially, i.e. for two claims, but not the others.” Dell Inc. v. Elecs. &
`
`Telecomms. Research Inst., Case No. IPR 2015-00549, Paper 10 at 7-8 (PTAB,
`
`Mar. 26, 2015) (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-
`
`patent-decisions/decisions-and-opinions/representative-orders). In the face of this
`
`representative decision, denial of this request would upend any semblance of
`
`consistency and predictability in practice before the Board.
`
`Accordingly, the Board’s determination to grant institution and joinder on a
`
`two-claim subset of the Microsoft IPR lack factual, statutory, or precedential bases
`
`and amount to an abuse of discretion.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests rehearing,
`
`reconsideration, and reversal as to the Board’s determinations on joinder and
`
`institution of claims 189 and 465 of the ’657 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated June 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Peter Lambrianakos/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`Shahar Harel (Reg. No. 73,203)
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: sharel@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`PATENT NO. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`A copy of Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing has been served on
`
`Petitioner at the correspondence of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`By Email:
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`
`
`
`
`
`By Email:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`By Email:
`
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`
`
`
`Dated June 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter Lambrianakos/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`
`
`
`
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
