`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________________________________
`
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent Number 8,155,342
`
`_________________________________________________
`
`Case Number IPR2016-01533
`
`__________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Introduction.
`
`Blitzsafe Texas LLC (“Patent Owner”) opposes American Honda Motor Co.,
`
`Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) motion to join inter partes review (“IPR”) number IPR2016-
`
`01533 (“Honda IPR”) to an earlier IPR filed by Toyota Motor Corporation
`
`(“Toyota”) IPR2016-00418 (“Toyota IPR”). Joinder should be denied for the
`
`following reasons.
`
`II. Joinder would violate statutory estoppel provisions under 35 U.S.C. §§
`315(b), 316(a)(11) and the Board should use its discretion to deny the
`motion for joinder.
`
`As the movant, Honda bears the burden to show that joinder is appropriate.
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In order to find joinder, the rules state that the Board is to
`
`consider the impact of both substantive issues and procedural matters on the
`
`proceedings and other discretionary considerations. Joinder should be denied here
`
`for both substantive and procedural reasons.
`
`
`
`Honda filed its joinder Petition more than one year after it had been served
`
`with a complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 (“the ’342
`
`Patent”) and both the Petition and joinder should be denied. Statutory estoppel
`
`provisions seek to “protect patent owners from harassment via successive petitions
`
`by the same or related parties, to prevent parties from having a ‘second bite at the
`
`apple’ and to protect the integrity of both the USPTO and Federal Courts by
`
`assuring that all issues are promptly raised and vetted.” 77 FR 48759. Section
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`315(b) bars institution “if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than
`
`1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the
`
`petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” This
`
`Petition was filed outside of the one year bar window and accordingly, only
`
`discretion of the Board can save the Petition.
`
`
`
`Honda already petitioned the Board on the same patent in IPR2016-01473
`
`(The -01473 Petition”). The -01473 Petition was filed on July 21, 2016 and Honda
`
`alleges that it was served with a complaint as early as July 22, 2015. Despite its
`
`explicit acknowledgement of its one year bar date, Honda waited until August 05,
`
`2016 to file the instant Petition––several weeks after its bar date had passed.
`
`Honda is a large company with extensive resources. There is no reason to employ
`
`discretion to save Honda from negligently failing to abide by the rules and Honda’s
`
`reckless disregard of the one year window could serve no purpose other than to
`
`delay and otherwise mire the proceedings.
`
`
`
`Moreover, by allowing joinder, Honda will effectively be afforded the
`
`opportunity to simultaneously argue two different positions. Honda’s earlier filed -
`
`01473 Petition includes some of the same prior art at issue in the Toyota IPR. By
`
`joining this proceeding, Honda will be allowed to argue its case relying on
`
`different positions related to some of the same prior art references and to
`
`potentially benefit from contradictory positions.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Petition should be denied institution based on the statutory
`
`bar and the motion for joinder should not allow Petitioner to circumvent the rules
`
`put in place to prevent conflicting findings and waste of judicial resources.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons stated above, the motion for joinder should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated September 7, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/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
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4) & 42.105(b)
`
`
`
`A copy of PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER has been served on Petitioner at the correspondence of the Petitioner as
`
`follows:
`
`Joseph Melnik
`Reg. No. 48,741
`jmelnik@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`1755 Embarcadero Road
`Palo Alto, California 94303
`Telephone: (650) 739-3939
`Facsimile: (650) 739-3939
`
`
`
`September 7, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
` /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