`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,694,657
`Issued: April 8, 2014
`Filed: September 20, 1999
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`____________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b) TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW
`IPR2016-01155
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ......................... 1
`I.
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ....................................................... 2
`II.
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ....................... 4
`A.
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely ............................................ 5
`C.
`Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder .............................................. 5
`1.
`Joinder is Appropriate as No New Grounds or Issues Are
`Raised ......................................................................................... 6
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the Trial Schedule ........... 8
`2.
`Joinder Petitioner Agrees to an “Understudy” Role .................. 9
`3.
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 10
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
`Case IPR2016-01365, slip op. (PTAB February 4, 2015) .................................... 5
`Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs. & Bioresources, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00556 (PTAB July 9, 2014) ......................................................... 7
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v. Zond, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00845 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2014) ......................................................... 6
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) ......................................... 1
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH,
`Case IPR2016-01386, slip op. (PTAB Nov. 30, 2016) ...................................... 10
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`Case IPR2014-00268, slip op. (PTAB Apr. 10, 2015) ....................................... 10
`Perfect World Entm’t, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01026 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2015) ........................................................ 6
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., et al. v. Raytheon Company,
`Case IPR2016-00962, slip op. (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) .................................... 5, 6
`Sony Corp. et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-01353, slip op. (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) ............................... 6, 8, 10
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation,
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01729-YGR, ECF No. 1 ...................................................... 2, 3
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................. 1, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) ................................................................................................. 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) ............................................................................................... ..8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ............................................................................................ 4, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) .......................................................................................... ..4, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ........................................................................................ 1, 4, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ...................................................................................... ..1, 4, 5
`
`
`
`-111-
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Facebook, Inc. (“Joinder Petitioner” or “Facebook”) respectfully submits
`
`this Motion for Joinder together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent. No. 8,694,657
`
`(“’657 Patent”)
`
`(“the
`
`Joinder Petition”)
`
`filed
`
`contemporaneously herewith.
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review 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–
`
`90, 202, 208, 214, 220, 226, 238, 250, 262, 268, 274, 280, 292, 304, 316, 322, 328,
`
`334, 336, 340, 342, 344, 346, 348, 350, 352–54, 362, 366, 370, 374, 378, 386, 394,
`
`402, 406, 410, 414, 422, 430, 438, 442, 450, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462, 464–66,
`
`476, 481, 486, 491, 496, 505, 515, 525, 530, 535, 545, 555, 565, 570, 580, 582,
`
`584, 586, 588, 590, 592, 594, 596–98, 606, 607, 615–17, 619, 621, 622, 624–26,
`
`628, 630, 632–34, 636, 638, 640–42, 644, 646, and 648–71 of the ’657 Patent in
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, IPR2016-01155 on December 8,
`
`2016. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b),
`
`Joinder Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review of claims 189 and 465
`
`of the ’657 Patent and requests joinder, as to those claims only, with IPR2016-
`
`01155.
`
`The Joinder Petition is narrowly tailored to the same claims, prior art, and
`
`grounds for unpatentability currently at issue in IPR2016-01155. In fact, the
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Joinder Petition and supporting exhibits are substantively the same as the original
`
`Petition submission (“Original Petition”) by Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft” or
`
`“Original Petitioner”) in IPR2016-01155, except that Joinder Petitioner seeks
`
`review and joinder as to only a subset of the claims upon which inter partes review
`
`has been instituted.
`
`Joinder is appropriate because it will not burden or prejudice the present
`
`parties to IPR2016-01155, will not cause any undue delay, and will efficiently
`
`resolve the question of the ’657 Patent’s validity on the instituted grounds.
`
`Further, Joinder Petitioner is willing to serve in a limited “understudy” role to
`
`streamline discovery and briefing.
`
`The Original Petitioner in IPR2016-01155, Microsoft, does not oppose the
`
`present motion for joinder.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On June 2, 2015, Windy City Innovations, LLC (“Windy City”) filed
`
`civil actions for patent infringement against Facebook and Microsoft in the
`
`Western District of North Carolina, asserting that Facebook and Microsoft have
`
`each infringed the ’657 Patent and three other patents. (Complaint, Windy City
`
`Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-01729-YGR
`
`(“Microsoft Action”), ECF No. 1; Complaint, Windy City Innovations, LLC v.
`
`Facebook Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR (“Facebook Action”), ECF No. 1.)
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`On March 16, 2016, the cases were transferred to the Northern District of
`
`California. (Microsoft Action, ECF No. 30; Facebook, ECF No. 32.)
`
`2.
`
`On June 3, 2016, Microsoft filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2016-01155) requesting cancellation 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, 182–90, 202,
`
`208, 214, 220, 226, 238, 250, 262, 268, 274, 280, 292, 304, 316, 322, 328, 334,
`
`336, 340, 342, 344, 346, 348, 350, 352–54, 362, 366, 370, 374, 378, 386, 394, 402,
`
`406, 410, 414, 422, 430, 438, 442, 450, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462, 464–66, 476,
`
`481, 486, 491, 496, 505, 515, 525, 530, 535, 545, 555, 565, 570, 580, 582, 584,
`
`586, 588, 590, 592, 594, 596–98, 606, 607, 615–17, 619, 621, 622, 624–26, 628,
`
`630, 632–34, 636, 638, 640–42, 644, 646, and 648-71 of the ’657 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`Also on June 3, 2016, Facebook filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2016-01159) requesting cancellation of claims 189, 334, 342, 348, 465, 580,
`
`584, and 592 of the ’657 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`On December 8, 2016, the Board in IPR2016-01155 instituted
`
`Microsoft’s petition for inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 18, 27, 35, 43, 51, 65,
`
`79, 93, 100, 108, 114, 126, 138, 150, 156, 168, 170, 172, 176, 178, 180, 182–90,
`
`202, 208, 214, 220, 226, 238, 250, 262, 268, 274, 280, 292, 304, 316, 322, 328,
`
`334, 336, 340, 342, 344, 346, 348, 350, 352–54, 362, 366, 370, 374, 378, 386, 394,
`
`402, 406, 410, 414, 422, 430, 438, 442, 450, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462, 464–66,
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`476, 481, 486, 491, 496, 505, 515, 525, 530, 535, 545, 555, 565, 570, 580, 582,
`
`584, 586, 588, 590, 592, 594, 596–98, 606, 607, 615–17, 619, 621, 622, 624–26,
`
`628, 630, 632–34, 636, 638, 640–42, 644, 646, and 648-71 of the ’657 Patent.
`
`5.
`
`On December 12, 2016, the Board in IPR2016-01159 instituted
`
`Facebook’s petition for inter partes review as to claims 189, 334, 342, 348, 465,
`
`580, 584, and 592 of the ’657 Patent.
`
`6.
`
`On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stay in the above civil
`
`actions pending inter partes review.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Board has statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a
`
`properly-filed inter partes review petition to an instituted inter partes review
`
`proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). A motion for joinder must be filed within one
`
`month of the Board instituting the inter partes review for which joinder is
`
`requested. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The one-year statutory time period set forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) does not apply when, as here, the petition is accompanied by
`
`a request for joinder. Id.
`
`A motion for joinder should (1) set forth 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
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified.
`
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., et al. v. Raytheon Company, Case IPR2016-00962,
`
`slip op. at 5 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (Paper 12) (citing Kyocera Corp. v. Softview
`
`LLC, Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15)). In
`
`exercising its discretion to grant joinder, the Board is “mindful of the public
`
`interest in securing the just, speeding, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`proceeding.” Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case
`
`IPR2016-01365, slip op. at 7 (PTAB February 4, 2015) (Paper 13) (citing 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.1(b)) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely because it is filed within one month of the
`
`December 8, 2016 institution decision of the Microsoft IPR. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b). The one-year bar set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) does not apply
`
`because the Joinder Petition is filed concurrently with this Motion for Joinder. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`C. Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder
`
`here. The Joinder Petition is substantively the same as the Original Petition as to
`
`the subset of claims at issue and does not present any new prior art, grounds of
`
`unpatentability, exhibits, or arguments. Joinder is also appropriate so that Joinder
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner can maintain the proceeding, in which a substantial question of
`
`invalidity has been raised, in the event that Original Petitioner ceases to participate
`
`in IPR2016-01155 as a result of settlement or otherwise. Joinder will have
`
`minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as the Joinder Petition presents no
`
`new prior art analysis or expert testimony. Discovery and briefing will be
`
`simplified because Joinder Petitioner is willing to accept a limited “understudy”
`
`role so long as Original Petitioner remains a participating party. Accordingly,
`
`joinder is appropriate and warranted here.
`
`1.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate as No New Grounds or Issues Are
`
`Raised
`
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking
`
`joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`proceeding.” Samsung v. Raytheon, Case IPR2016-00962, slip op. at 9 (PTAB
`
`Aug. 24, 2016) (Paper 12) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphases in
`
`original).1 Here, joinder with pending IPR2016-01155 is appropriate because the
`
`1 See also Sony Corp. et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, Case IPR2015-01353, slip
`
`op. at 5-6 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) (Paper 11) (granting institution of IPR and motion
`
`for joinder where petitions relied “on the same prior art, same arguments, and same
`
`evidence, including the same expert and a substantively identical declaration”
`
`(citations omitted)); Perfect World Entm’t, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., Case
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`Joinder Petition relies on identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the
`
`existing proceeding. The Joinder Petition relies on the same expert declaration and
`
`other supporting exhibits, asserts the same grounds and combinations of prior art,
`
`and challenges only a subset of claims already instituted in IPR2016-01155. The
`
`Joinder Petition is substantively the same as the Original Petition as to the subset
`
`of challenged claims, with only non-substantive differences such as those related to
`
`the formalities of the different party filing the petition.
`
`Because the Joinder Petition and the Original Petition are substantively the
`
`same as to the subset of challenged claims, good cause exists for joining the
`
`proceedings so that the Board can efficiently resolve the common grounds in both
`
`Petitions in a single proceeding. Furthermore, the substantial questions of
`
`invalidity as to the ’657 Patent are issues of interest to Joinder Petitioner Facebook,
`
`which stands accused of infringing certain claims of the ’657 Patent, as well as the
`
`broader public interest in the likely invalidity of an issued patent. Joinder is
`
`therefore appropriate for the additional reason that the invalidity grounds as to the
`
`challenged and joined claims can be resolved through the participation of Joinder
`
`IPR2015-01026 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2015) (Paper 10); Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. v.
`
`Zond, LLC, Case IPR2014-00845 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2014) (Paper 14); Enzymotec Ltd.
`
`v. Neptune Techs. & Bioresources, Inc., Case IPR2014-00556 (PTAB July 9, 2014)
`
`(Paper 19)).
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner even if Original Petitioner, Microsoft, were to reach a settlement with
`
`Patent Owner or otherwise cease to participate in the proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the Trial Schedule
`
`Joinder will have minimal impact, if any, on the existing IPR trial schedule
`
`because the Joinder Petition presents no new issues or arguments for Patent Owner
`
`or the Board to consider. See Sony Corp. et al. v. Memory Integrity, Case
`
`IPR2015-01353, slip op. at 6 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) (Paper 11) (granting IPR and
`
`motion for joinder where “joinder should not necessitate any additional briefing or
`
`discovery from Patent Owner beyond that already required in [the original IPR].”).
`
`Further, because the Joinder Petition relies on the same expert declaration as the
`
`Original Petition, only a single deposition is needed for the proposed joined
`
`proceeding. Absent any new issues, there is no reason to materially delay or
`
`modify the existing trial schedule.
`
`Accordingly, joinder with pending IPR2016-01155 will not unduly impact
`
`the trial schedule. However, even if a minor adjustment of the trial schedule was
`
`appropriate, the rules provide for such an adjustment, which is a routine
`
`undertaking by parties in IPR proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). A
`
`reasonable adjustment in the trial schedule, if needed, should not preclude joinder
`
`here.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Petitioner Agrees to an “Understudy” Role
`
`Additionally, Joinder Petitioner agrees to take an “understudy” role in the
`
`joined proceeding, absent termination of the Original Petitioner, Microsoft, as a
`
`party. In particular, Facebook agrees that, in the joined proceeding, the following
`
`conditions shall apply in this proceeding so long as the Original Petitioner,
`
`Microsoft, remains an active party to this proceeding, as previously approved by
`
`the Board in similar circumstances:
`
`(a) all filings by Joinder Petitioner in the joined proceeding be consolidated
`
`with the filings of the Original Petitioner, unless a filing solely concerns
`
`issues that do not involve the Original Petitioner;
`
`(b) Joinder Petitioner shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not
`
`already instituted by the Board, or introduce any argument or discovery not
`
`already introduced by the Original Petitioner;
`
`(c) Joinder Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent
`
`Owner and the Original Petitioner concerning discovery and/or depositions;
`
`and
`
`(d) Joinder Petitioner at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross
`
`examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for the petitioner in this
`
`proceeding alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between
`
`Patent Owner and the Original Petitioner.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`See Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novartis AG, Case IPR2014-00268, slip op. at 5 (PTAB
`
`Apr. 10, 2015) (Paper 17). The Original Petitioner, Microsoft, does not object to
`
`Joinder Petitioner’s proposed understudy role in the joined proceeding. Joinder
`
`Petitioner would assume a primary role only if the Original Petitioner ceased to
`
`participate in the proceeding.
`
`
`
`The Board has consistently held that that the acceptance of an “understudy”
`
`role removes any undue complications or delay that might allegedly result from
`
`joinder. See, e.g., Sony Corp. et al. v. Memory Integrity, Case IPR2015-01353, slip
`
`op. at 7 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) (Paper 11); see also Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et
`
`al. v. Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH, Case IPR2016-01386, slip op. at 6 (PTAB Nov. 30,
`
`2016) (Paper 9).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the factors discussed above, Petitioner respectfully requests that
`
`this motion be granted and an inter partes review of the challenged claims 189 and
`
`465 of the ’657 Patent be instituted based on the same grounds authorized and for
`
`the same reasons discussed in the Institution Decision in IPR2016-01155 with
`
`respect to those claims, and that this proceeding be joined with IPR2016-01155
`
`with respect to those claims.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Heidi L. Keefe
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`
`Reg. No. 40,673
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 7, 2017
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that a complete copy of the
`attached MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b) TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2016-
`01155 is being served in its entirety on the 7th day of January, 2017, the same day
`as the filing of the above-identified document in the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, via Priority Mail Express upon
`the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of record with the
`USPTO as follows:
`
`PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ.
`PO BOX 7131
`CHICAGO IL 60680
`
`
`and, via Federal Express upon counsel of record for the Patent Owner in the
`litigation pending before the U.S. District Court for the North District of California
`entitled Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-1730-
`YGR (N.D. Cal.) as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Heidi L. Keefe
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`
`
`
`Warren J. McCarty, III
`wmccarty@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY
`2101 Cedar Springs Rd., Suite 1000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Dated: January 7, 2017
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
`-12-