`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE
`TWO LLC & CO. KG
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`DSS Technology Management, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2016-01311
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, and 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................................... 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS .......................................................... 1
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF .......................... 2
`
`A. Legal Standards ........................................................................................ 2
`
`B.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate .............................................................................. 4
`
`1. No New Grounds of Unpatentability in the Petition ........................ 6
`
`2.
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Board’s Ability to Complete
`the Review in a Timely Manner ....................................................... 7
`
`3. Briefing and Discovery Will be Simplified ..................................... 8
`
`4. No Prejudice to Patent Owner .......................................................... 9
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`The Petitioners for the present Petition are GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.,
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module One
`
`LLC & Co. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG
`
`(collectively “GF”) and Qualcomm, Incorporated (“Qualcomm”), collectively
`
`referred to as “Petitioner.” Petitioner respectfully submits this Motion for Joinder
`
`together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,784,552 (the “Present Petition” or “Present IPR”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner requests inter partes review and joinder with
`
`Intel Corporation v. DSS Technology Management, Inc., IPR2016-00287 (“Intel”
`
`and “the Intel IPR”), which was instituted on June 8, 2016. Joinder is appropriate
`
`because it will promote efficient and consistent resolution of the unpatentability
`
`grounds at issue and will not prejudice any of the parties to the Intel IPR.
`
`This Motion for Joinder and accompanying Petition are being filed within
`
`one month of the decision instituting trial in the Intel IPR, and are therefore timely.
`
`Counsel for GF/Qualcomm has conferred with counsel for Intel, and Intel does not
`
`oppose joinder.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`1.
`On February 16, 2015, the owner of the ’552 Patent, DSS Technology
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Management, Inc. (“DSS”), sued Intel and other companies (not including GF or
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`Qualcomm) alleging infringement of the ’552 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`On July 16, 2015, DSS sued Qualcomm and other companies (not
`
`including GF) alleging infringement of the ’552 Patent. Qualcomm is a co-
`
`petitioner to the present Petition.
`
`3.
`
`On December 8, 2015, Intel, timely filed a Petition for inter partes
`
`review challenging claims 1-7 of the ’552 Patent, within a year of Intel being sued
`
`on the patent. See Intel Corporation v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.,
`
`IPR2016-00287, Paper 2 (PTAB Dec. 8, 2015).
`
`4.
`
`On June 8, 2016, the Board instituted an inter partes review of claims
`
`1-7 of the ’552 Patent. See Intel, IPR2016-00287, Paper 11.
`
`5.
`
`Concurrently with this motion, GF/Qualcomm timely filed the Present
`
`Petition for inter partes review challenging claims 1-7 of the ’552 Patent, within a
`
`year of Qualcomm being sued on the patent. GF was not sued on the patent.
`
`6.
`
`GF/Qualcomm’s unpatentability grounds in the Present IPR are
`
`identical to the positions in the instituted Intel IPR.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`A. Legal Standards
`The Board has authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a party who files a
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proper inter partes review petition to a previously-instituted inter partes review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`proceeding. This authority is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122.
`
`In exercising its discretion to grant joinder, the Board considers the impact
`
`of substantive and procedural issues on the proceedings, as well as other
`
`considerations, while being “mindful that patent trial regulations, including the
`
`rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of every proceeding.” Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 3-4 (PTAB July 29, 2013). The Board should consider
`
`“the policy preference for joining a party that does not present new issues that
`
`might complicate or delay an existing proceeding.” Id. at 10. Under this
`
`framework, joinder of the Present IPR with the Intel IPR is appropriate.
`
`The legislative history of the AIA suggests that the joinder may be granted
`
`as a matter of right where the later petitioner files an identical petition with
`
`identical grounds of unpatentability. See 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 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.”)
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`The moving party has the burden of proof and “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 17 at 4. Each of these
`
`is addressed fully below.
`
`B.
`Joinder is Appropriate
`Although joinder is discretionary, it is appropriate here because the Present
`
`Petition does “not present issues that might complicate or delay” the existing Intel
`
`IPR. See Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs & Bioresources, Inc., IPR2014-00556,
`
`Paper 19 at 6 (July 9, 2014) (“we are mindful of a policy preference for joining a
`
`party that does not present new issues that might complicate or delay an existing
`
`proceeding”). In fact, because the Present Petition contains the identical grounds
`
`on which the Intel IPR was instituted, joinder would secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of the related proceedings.
`
`Additionally, while the Petitioner in the Present IPR and the Petitioner in the
`
`Intel IPR have relied upon testimony from separate experts in their respective
`
`petitions, the analysis and rationale of the experts are the same, and therefore
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`present no additional burden on the part of the Patent Owner to address. Indeed, in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`circumstances such as these, the Board has permitted joinder. See Apotex, Inc. and
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis AG and Mitsubishi Pharma Corp.,
`
`IPR2015-00518, Paper 8 at 6 (Feb. 17, 2015) (granting motion for joinder were
`
`petition relied on substantially the same declaration but from a different expert). In
`
`short, joinder would have little, if any, impact on the Intel IPR because no new
`
`grounds would be added, the schedule would not be affected, and no additional
`
`burdens would be placed on Patent Owner, as detailed below.
`
`Petitioner moves to join the Intel IPR to ensure that it reaches a final
`
`decision in the event Intel settles with Patent Owner and is dismissed from the
`
`review. In that regard, an inter partes review “shall be terminated with respect to
`
`any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board, at its discretion, “may terminate the review” if no
`
`petitioner remains. Id. In previous proceedings, the Board has exercised its
`
`discretion not to terminate a review after dismissing the petitioner because of a
`
`pending joinder motion in a related proceeding. See MediaTek Inc., et. al. v.
`
`Bandspeed, Inc., IPR2015-00314, Paper 20 at 3 (PTAB Sept. 17, 2015) (“We
`
`exercise the discretion afforded under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) to decline, at this time, to
`
`terminate these proceedings with respect to Patent Owner”). Specifically, in
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MediaTek, the Board, after noting that the Motion for Joinder was filed before the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`Motion to Terminate, chose to wait until after ruling on the Motion for Joinder to
`
`consider whether to terminate the review entirely. Id.
`
`Here, if Intel moves to terminate its IPR and Intel is dismissed before the
`
`Board decides this Motion for Joinder, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board exercise its discretion and decline to terminate the Patent Owner at least
`
`until the Board considers this motion. If the Intel IPR is completely terminated
`
`before joinder can be effectuated, a proceeding with identical grounds of
`
`unpatentability would begin anew requiring the parties to expend resources
`
`rearguing the same issues.
`
`Accordingly, joinder is appropriate because it eliminates the possibility of
`
`duplicate efforts and ensures a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of these
`
`proceedings.
`
`1.
`
`No New Grounds of Unpatentability in the Petition
`
`The Present Petition is identical to the petition in the Intel IPR. In particular,
`
`the Present Petition challenges the same instituted claims (1-7) under the same
`
`grounds, while relying on the same arguments, substantially the same expert
`
`declaration (although different expert), and evidence. Because the Board instituted
`
`a subset of the grounds requested in the Intel IPR (see Intel, IPR2016-00287, Paper
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11), Petitioner requests that only those grounds instituted in the Intel IPR be
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`instituted in the present proceeding. Accordingly, no new claims and no new
`
`grounds will be added to the Intel IPR as a result of the Board allowing joinder.
`
`Denial of joinder, however, would result in parallel proceedings involving identical
`
`grounds of unpatentability and needless duplication of effort.
`
`2.
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Board’s Ability to Complete
`the Review in a Timely Manner
`
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and associated rule 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(c) provide that inter partes review proceedings should be completed and the
`
`Board’s final decision issued within one year of institution of the review. In this
`
`case, joinder will not affect the Board’s ability to issue the decision within this
`
`required one-year timeframe because the Petition filed in the Present IPR contains
`
`the identical ground on which the Intel IPR was instituted.
`
`In addition, if joined, Petitioner respectfully proposes procedures to simplify
`
`any further briefing and discovery, which will minimize any potential impact on
`
`the schedule or the volume of materials to be submitted to the Board. Given that all
`
`petitioners—Intel and GF/Qualcomm—will be addressing the identical grounds for
`
`challenging the claims at issue, the Petitioner in the Present IPR will not file
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`additional briefs outside of the consolidated filings, will not request any additional
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`deposition time, and will not request any additional oral hearing time.1 In the event
`
`the Intel IPR is terminated with respect to the petitioner, GF/Qualcomm intend to
`
`“step into the shoes” of the dismissed petitioner and materially participate in the
`
`joined proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons above, joinder of the Present IPR to the Intel
`
`IPR will not affect the Board’s ability to complete its review and issue a final
`
`decision within the statutory time limits under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(c).
`
`3.
`
`Briefing and Discovery Will be Simplified
`
`It is noted that Petitioner would not be time barred from filing the present
`
`Petition without a corresponding motion for joinder. However, determining the
`
`same patentability questions concerning the ’552 Patent in separate parallel
`
`proceedings would complicate/duplicate efforts and create a risk of inconsistent
`
`results and piecemeal review.
`
`
`1 While Petitioner will not materially participate in calls with the Board,
`
`depositions, and any oral hearing, Petitioner anticipates that its counsel will attend
`
`8
`
`such events.
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`Given that the positions in the Present Petition are identical to Intel’s
`
`
`
`positions in the instituted IPR, Petitioner agrees to consolidated filings for all
`
`substantive papers and to consolidated discovery in the joined proceeding. With
`
`respect to consolidated filings, any papers jointly submitted by petitioners will not
`
`exceed the normal word count or page limits for a single party set forth in the rules.
`
`Petitioner will not file, or request to file, any separate briefs beyond the
`
`consolidated filings. Petitioner will not request additional cross-examination or re-
`
`direct time. Additionally, with respect to any oral hearing, Intel will be responsible
`
`for the presentation before the Board. Petitioner will not request any additional
`
`time to independently argue before the Board or attempt to submit its own
`
`demonstratives.
`
`Accordingly, if joinder is granted, briefing and discovery in the joined
`
`proceeding will be no more complex than if Petitioner had never been joined.
`
`Consolidated briefing and discovery will ensure a simplified and efficient joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`No Prejudice to Patent Owner
`
`Joinder to the Intel IPR will not create any additional burden on Patent
`
`Owner. The Patent Owner need not expend any additional resources above and
`
`beyond those required in the current Intel IPR. Moreover, joinder eliminates the
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`need for Patent Owner to participate in parallel inter partes review proceedings
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,784,552 Claims 1-7
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`instituted upon identical grounds of patentability. By allowing the identical
`
`grounds of unpatentability to be addressed in a single proceeding, the interests of
`
`all parties and the Board will be well served.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`institute the instant inter partes review upon the same grounds instituted in
`
`IPR2016-00287 and join the proceedings.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 1, 2016
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Customer No. 27683
`
`
`Telephone: 972/739-8635
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David M. O’Dell/
`David M. O’Dell
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners
`Registration No. 42,044
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105, service was made on Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service July 1, 2016
`
`Manner of service Federal Express
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22, and 42.122(b)
`
`Smith & Hopen (private clients)
`Attn: General Patent Matters
`180 Pine Avenue North
`Oldsmar FL 34677
`
`
`
`Persons served per
`USPTO records
`
`
`
`
`
`/David M. O’Dell/
`David M. O’Dell
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 42,044