`Filed: June 10, 2016
`
`Filed on behalf of: Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
`By: Michael T. Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`
`Andrew S. Brown (asbrown@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Patent No. 8,677,494
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Statement of the Precise Relief Requested .................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Background................................................................................................... 2
`
`III. Argument ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Blue Coat’s Motion for Joinder is Timely ........................................... 3
`
`The Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder ................................ 3
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate ............................................................... 4
`
`No New Grounds Are Presented ............................................... 5
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the PAN IPR Trial
`Schedule.................................................................................... 6
`
`iv. Discovery and Briefing Can Be Simplified ............................... 6
`
`IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Statement of the Precise Relief Requested
`
`Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Blue Coat”) submits, concurrently with this
`
`motion, a petition for inter partes review (“Petition”) of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11,
`
`14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (“the ’494 patent”), which is assigned to
`
`Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner”). Blue Coat respectfully requests that this proceeding
`
`be joined, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), with a
`
`pending inter partes review initiated by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”),
`
`IPR2016-00159 (“PAN IPR”), which was instituted on May 13, 2016.
`
`Blue Coat’s request for joinder is timely, because it is submitted within one
`
`month of the date on which the PAN IPR was instituted. The Petition is also
`
`narrowly tailored to the grounds of unpatentability that are the subject of the PAN
`
`IPR, with grounds that are substantively identical to the instituted grounds of the
`
`PAN IPR, including the same analysis of the prior art and expert testimony. In
`
`addition, joinder is appropriate because it will efficiently resolve the patentability
`
`of the challenged claims of the ’494 patent, without prejudicing the parties to the
`
`PAN IPR. Indeed, absent termination of PAN as a party to the proceeding, Blue
`
`Coat is willing to take a “backseat” role to PAN, in which it would not file any
`
`separate papers without consultation with PAN and prior authorization from the
`
`Board.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Blue Coat has conferred with counsel for PAN regarding the subject of this
`
`motion. PAN has indicated that it does not oppose joinder.
`
`II. Background
`
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’494 patent against a number of defendants,
`
`including Blue Coat. On July 15, 2015, Patent Owner filed a complaint asserting
`
`the ’494 patent against Blue Coat. See Case No. 5:15-cv-3295 (N.D. Cal. filed July
`
`15, 2015).
`
`On November 6, 2015, PAN filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`challenging certain claims of the ’494 patent. The Board instituted the PAN IPR on
`
`May 13, 2016 based on two grounds: (1) claims 1-2, 6, 10-11, and 15 are rendered
`
`obvious by Dynamic Detection and Classification of Computer Viruses Using
`
`General Behaviour Patterns, by Morton Swimmer, and (2) claims 3-5 and 12-14
`
`are rendered obvious by Swimmer in view of Blocking Java Applets at the
`
`Firewall, by David Martin.
`
`III. Argument
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Board has authority to join as a party to an instituted inter partes review
`
`one who properly files a petition for inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). 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 deciding whether
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`to grant a motion for joinder, the Board considers several factors including: (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 Sciences 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) (quoting Kyocera Corporation v.
`
`Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (April 24, 2013)).
`
`B.
`
`Blue Coat’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`Joinder may be requested no later than one month after the institution date of
`
`an inter partes review for which joinder is requested. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Here,
`
`because the Board instituted the PAN IPR on May 13, 2016, less than one month
`
`before the filing of this motion, this motion for joinder is timely.
`
`C. The Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`As discussed below, granting joinder will not enlarge the scope of the PAN IPR
`
`and will not negatively impact the PAN IPR schedule, but a decision denying
`
`joinder could prejudice Blue Coat. Thus, joinder is appropriate and warranted.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`i.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`
`Joinder with the PAN IPR is appropriate because the Petition is limited to
`
`the grounds instituted in the PAN IPR. The Petition also relies on the same prior
`
`art analysis and expert testimony submitted by PAN. Indeed, the Petition is
`
`virtually identical to PAN’s petition with respect to the instituted grounds, and
`
`does not include any grounds not instituted in the PAN IPR. Other than certain
`
`formalities (e.g., mandatory notice information, identification of counsel, etc.), and
`
`the removal of non-instituted grounds, the present petition is virtually identical in
`
`content to PAN’s petition. Certainly, no substantive differences exist between the
`
`Petition and PAN’s petition with respect to the instituted grounds.
`
`Joinder is also appropriate because it will promote the efficient
`
`determination of the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’494 patent. For
`
`example, a final written decision on the patentability of the ’494 patent has the
`
`potential to minimize issues in the underlying litigation. Absent joinder, if Patent
`
`Owner and PAN settle, the PTAB or a district court may be forced to re-adjudicate
`
`the same issues on which PAN has already shown it is reasonably likely to prevail,
`
`which would be a waste of resources.
`
`Moreover, granting joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or PAN, while
`
`Blue Coat could be prejudiced if joinder is denied. As mentioned above, the
`
`Petition does not raise any new ground that is not raised in PAN’s petition. In
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`addition, the Board issued an institution decision in the PAN IPR on May 13, 2016.
`
`Therefore, joinder should not significantly affect the timing of the PAN IPR. Also,
`
`there should be little to no additional cost to Patent Owner or PAN given the
`
`overlap in the petitions. On the other hand, Blue Coat would potentially be
`
`prejudiced if joinder is denied. For example, absent joinder, Patent Owner may
`
`attempt to use aspects of the PAN IPR against Blue Coat in district court, even
`
`though Blue Coat was not able to participate in the PAN IPR to protect its
`
`interests.
`
`ii.
`
`No New Grounds Are Presented
`
`The Petition does not present any new ground of unpatentability. As
`
`mentioned above, the Petition raises only the instituted grounds of the PAN IPR,
`
`and in fact duplicates the PAN petition with respect to those grounds, including the
`
`same prior art analysis and expert testimony. See Petition. The petitions do not
`
`differ in any substantive way, other than the removal of grounds on which
`
`institution was not granted. In such circumstances, the Board has routinely granted
`
`joinder, because doing so does not introduce any additional arguments, briefing, or
`
`need for discovery. See, e.g., Hyundai, IPR2014-01543, Paper No. 11 at 2-4; Sony
`
`Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00495, Paper No. 13 at 5-
`
`9 (Sep. 16, 2013); Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 17, at 6-10 (Jul. 29, 2013); Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00256, Paper 10 at 4-10 (June 20, 2013).
`
`iii.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the PAN IPR Trial
`Schedule
`
`Because the Petition copies the grounds instituted in the PAN IPR, including
`
`the prior art analysis and expert testimony provided by PAN, joinder will not
`
`prevent the Board from issuing a final written decision in a timely manner. The
`
`timing and content of Blue Coat’s Petition and motion for joinder minimize any
`
`impact to the PAN IPR trial schedule. Moreover, as discussed above, Blue Coat
`
`anticipates participating in the proceeding in a limited capacity absent termination
`
`of PAN as a party. For example, if the proceedings are joined and absent
`
`termination of PAN as a party, it is anticipated that no expert witnesses beyond
`
`those presented by PAN and Patent Owner will present testimony. Accordingly,
`
`Blue Coat does not believe that any extension of the schedule will be required by
`
`virtue of joinder of Blue Coat as a petitioner to the proceeding. Even if the Board
`
`were to determine that joinder would require a modest extension of the schedule,
`
`such an extension is permitted by law and is not a reason for denying joinder. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c).
`
`iv. Discovery and Briefing Can Be Simplified
`
`Given that the Petition is substantively identical to PAN’s petition with
`
`respect to the instituted grounds, the Board may adopt procedures similar to those
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`used in past joinder cases to simplify briefing and discovery during trial. See e.g.,
`
`Hyundai, IPR2014-01543, Paper No. 11 at 5; Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17
`
`at 8-10; Motorola, IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 at 8-10. Specifically, the Board may
`
`order petitioners to consolidate filings or limit separate filings, if any, to points of
`
`disagreement (Blue Coat does not anticipate any), with the understanding that Blue
`
`Coat will not be permitted any separate arguments in furtherance of those
`
`advanced in PAN’s consolidated filings. See e.g., Hyundai, IPR2014-01543, Paper
`
`No. 11 at 5. Further, no additional depositions will be needed and depositions will
`
`be completed within ordinary time limits. Id. Moreover, to the extent that Blue
`
`Coat does participate in the proceedings, Blue Coat will coordinate with PAN to
`
`consolidate filings, manage questioning at depositions, manage presentations at the
`
`hearing, ensure that briefing and discovery occur within the time normally allotted,
`
`and avoid redundancies. In particular, Blue Coat is willing to take a “backseat” role
`
`to PAN, in which it would not file any separate papers without consultation with
`
`PAN and prior authorization from the Board. These procedures should simplify
`
`briefing and discovery.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Blue Coat respectfully requests that this motion
`
`be granted and that this proceeding be joined with the PAN IPR.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Dated: June 10, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that I
`
`caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Joinder by
`
`overnight courier (Federal Express or UPS), on this 10th day of June, 2016, on the
`
`Patent Owner at the correspondence address of the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Dawn-Marie Bey
`Bey & Cotropia PLLC (Finjan Inc.)
`213 Bayly Court
`Richmond, VA 23229
`
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Avenue
`Suite 600
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 10, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-