`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE: Unassigned Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 5
`II.
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS ................................... 6
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 7
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 8
`B.
`Joinder Is Appropriate ........................................................................... 9
`1.
`LG’s Petition is Substantively Identical to the Canon Petition.
` ................................................................................................... 10
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Canon IPR Trial Schedule. ......... 11
`2.
`LG Agrees to Consolidated Filings and Discovery. ................. 13
`3.
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER .................................................................................... 14
`V.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Canon Inc. et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG,
`IPR2016-01211, Paper 11 (Dec. 15, 2016)................................................. 5, 6, 12
`
`Canon Inc. et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG,
`IPR2016-01211, Paper 12 (Dec. 15, 2016)......................................................... 12
`
`Canon Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis AG, et al.,
`IPR2015- 00268, Paper 17 (April 10, 2015) ...................................................... 10
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013) ....................................................... 8, 9
`
`Kyocera Corp. et al. v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (Apr. 24, 2013) ........................................................... 8
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 (June 20, 2013) ......................................................... 10
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation,
`MDL 1880, Case No. 1-07-mc-00493 (D.D.C.) ................................................... 6
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6-15-cv-1095 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................................... 7
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 6-15-cv-1099 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................................... 7
`
`Sony Corp., et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 (Oct. 15, 2015) ................................................... 10, 13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ............................................................................................. 5, 7, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`3
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ............................................................................................ 6, 7
`
`157 CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) .................................................. 11
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”) submits this Motion for Joinder
`
`concurrently with a Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,504,746 (“Petition”) based on grounds identical to those presented in Canon Inc.
`
`et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, IPR2016-01211 (the “Canon IPR”).
`
`The Canon IPR was instituted on December 15, 2016. Canon IPR, Paper 11
`
`(Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review) (Dec. 15, 2016), at 2, 21.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), LG respectfully requests and moves that its
`
`Petition be instituted and joined with the Canon IPR, under the exact same trial
`
`schedule. The petitioners in the Canon IPR consent to LG’s request for joinder.
`
`Joinder is appropriate because: (a) LG’s Petition includes the same
`
`substance as the petition in the Canon IPR (“Canon Petition”); (b) joinder will have
`
`no impact on the existing schedule in the Canon IPR; and (c) joinder will promote
`
`the efficient resolution of issues, specifically whether U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746
`
`(“the ’746 patent”) is unpatentable over well-known prior art.
`
`Absent joinder, LG will be prejudiced. In view of the potential impact on
`
`pending litigation against LG brought by Patent Owner relative to the ’746 patent
`
`and other related patents, LG has a significant interest in the underlying
`
`patentability determination at issue in the Canon IPR. Joinder would protect LG’s
`
`interests without affecting the scheduling or complexity of the pending Canon IPR,
`
`5
`
`
`
`and without prejudice to the petitioners in the Canon IPR (“Canon Petitioners”) or
`
`to Patent Owner. In light of the fact that LG’s Petition raises the same grounds of
`
`unpatentability over the same prior art, and that the Canon Petitioners are willing
`
`to agree to LG’s joinder, joinder with the Canon IPR is appropriate.
`
`LG’s present motion for joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b), because it is submitted within one month of December 15,
`
`2016, the date on which the Canon IPR was instituted. Canon IPR, Paper 11.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`On June 17, 2016, the Canon Petitioners filed a petition (the Canon Petition)
`
`for inter partes review of the ’746 patent. On December 15, 2016, the Board
`
`issued a Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review of the ’746 patent based on the
`
`Canon Petition. Canon IPR, Paper 11. LG’s Petition presents the same grounds of
`
`unpatentability, the same prior art, and the same expert evidence as the Canon
`
`Petition.
`
`The Canon Petitioners are defendants in a multi-district litigation pending
`
`before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia1 in which Patent Owner
`
`asserts infringement of the ’144 patent and related patents. The Canon Petitioners
`
`have filed thirteen (13) petitions for inter partes review of the ’144 patent and
`
`1 In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, MDL 1880, Case No. 1-
`
`07-mc-00493 (D.D.C.).
`
`6
`
`
`
`related patents (including the Canon Petition). Eight (8) of those petitions have
`
`been granted at least in-part and proceedings have been instituted.2
`
`Petitioner LG is a defendant in a different litigation pending before the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.3 In that Texas litigation, Patent
`
`Owner again asserts infringement of the ’144 patent and related patents. LG has
`
`filed three petitions for inter partes review of patents involved in that litigation.4
`
`LG is also filing one additional petition and motion for joinder concurrently with
`
`the instant petition and motion for joinder.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`LG respectfully requests that the Board exercise its discretion and grant
`
`joinder of the instant Petition with the Canon IPR pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In support of this Motion, LG
`
`2 The instituted IPRs filed by the Canon Petitioners are IPR2016-01199, IPR2016-
`
`01200, IPR2016-01211, IPR2016-01212, IPR2016-01213, IPR2016-01214,
`
`IPR2016-01216, and IPR2016-01225.
`
`3 Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 6-15-
`
`cv-1099 (E.D. Tex.) (consolidated for discovery into Papst Licensing GmbH & Co.
`
`KG v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-15-cv-1095 (E.D. Tex.)).
`
`4 The IPR petitions filed by LG are IPR2017-00415, IPR2017-00448, and
`
`IPR2017-00448.
`
`7
`
`
`
`proposes consolidated filings and other procedural accommodations designed to
`
`streamline the proceedings, as described further below.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act permits joinder of IPR proceedings.
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder of IPR proceedings is 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c):
`
`(c) JOINDER.—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 that the
`
`Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a
`
`response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`
`partes review under section 314.
`
`Motions for joinder 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, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013), at 4; Kyocera Corp. et al. v. Softview LLC,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (Apr. 24, 2013). As part of its discretion, the Board
`
`should consider 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., IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper 17, at 3. The Board may also 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, for the reasons set forth in
`
`the Petition and the present motion, joinder of the present instant Petition with the
`
`Canon IPR is appropriate.
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`B.
`Joinder is appropriate in this case because it is the most expedient way to
`
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the two related proceedings.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). The instant Petition presents the same
`
`grounds of unpatentability, the same arguments, and the same evidence presented
`
`in the Canon Petition. Given the duplicative nature of these petitions and LG’s
`
`significant interest in the underlying patentability determination at issue, joinder of
`
`the related proceedings is appropriate and conserves Board resources. Further, LG
`
`will agree to consolidated filings and discovery so that LG will be bound by the
`
`schedule set forth in the Canon IPR.
`
`9
`
`
`
`The Board has found joinder is appropriate where (1) the joinder petition is
`
`identical to the instituted petition, (2) the party joining the proceeding agrees to
`
`consolidated filings and discovery, (3) joinder will not affect the schedule in the
`
`pending IPR, and (4) joinder will streamline the proceedings and increase
`
`efficiency without prejudicing the parties. See, e.g., Sony Corp., et al. v. Memory
`
`Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 (Oct. 15, 2015) (granting LG and Sony’s
`
`motion for joinder where joinder petition presented identical grounds and identical
`
`evidence to the already instituted petition and where Sony and LG agreed to
`
`“understudy” role with consolidated filings and discovery); Canon
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis AG, et al., IPR2015- 00268, Paper 17 (April 10,
`
`2015) (granting motion for joinder of substantially identical petition where
`
`petitioner agreed to consolidated filings and discovery and relied on the same
`
`expert declarations); Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00256,
`
`Paper 10 (June 20, 2013) (granting motion for joinder under similar
`
`circumstances). This Petition and Motion is no different.
`
`1.
`
`LG’s Petition is Substantively Identical to the Canon
`Petition.
`
`The instant Petition contains the same substance presented in the petition in
`
`the Canon IPR. LG’s Petition challenges the same patent claims, contains the
`
`same grounds of unpatentability, and is the same in all substantive aspects as the
`
`instituted Canon IPR.
`
`10
`
`
`
`LG’s Petition contains the same analysis and exhibits, and relies on the same
`
`expert opinion—that of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds. If joinder is granted, LG is prepared
`
`to rely solely on the testimony of Dr. Reynolds.
`
`Because the Board has already instituted trial in the Canon IPR, the
`
`substantively identical instant Petition and supporting exhibits will not require
`
`additional Board resources to determine that institution and joinder of the instant
`
`petition with the Canon IPR is appropriate. Indeed, in circumstances such as these,
`
`the PTO anticipated that joinder of proceedings would be granted as a matter of
`
`right. 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 IPR 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.”).
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Canon IPR Trial Schedule.
`
`2.
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review in a timely
`
`manner. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) provide that IPR
`
`proceedings should be completed and the Board’s final decision issued within one
`
`year of institution of the review. The same provisions provide the Board with
`
`flexibility to extend the one-year period by up to six months for good cause, or in
`
`the case of joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). In this case,
`
`11
`
`
`
`joinder should not affect the Board’s ability to issue its final determination within
`
`one year because LG does not raise any issues that are not already before the Board
`
`and the Canon IPR was instituted only one month ago. See Canon IPR, Paper 11.
`
`Further, LG agrees that the Scheduling Order issued in the Canon IPR will
`
`apply to the joined proceeding. See Canon IPR, Paper 12 (Scheduling Order) (Dec.
`
`15, 2016). The first deadline is the Initial Conference Call, which has not yet
`
`occurred and which deadline is “Upon Request” by the parties. Id. at 7. In the
`
`event that call occurs before LG is joined, LG agrees to be bound by any
`
`agreements or commitments made by the Canon Petitioners on that call.
`
`The next deadline in the Canon IPR is Patent Owner’s response to the
`
`petition and any motion to amend the petition, which is currently set for March 15,
`
`2017―two months from the date of this motion. Should the Board grant LG’s
`
`request for joinder, Patent Owner will have ample time to complete its submission
`
`by its deadline, particularly given that Patent Owner’s response would not require
`
`any analysis beyond that needed to respond to the Canon Petition. None of the
`
`other deadlines should need to be extended following joinder of LG’s Petition to
`
`the Canon IPR. In sum, no aspect of the trial schedule for the Canon IPR would
`
`need to be impacted to effect joinder. Rather, a joint proceeding would allow the
`
`Board and parties to focus on the merits in one consolidated proceeding without
`
`unnecessary duplication of effort, and in a timely manner.
`
`12
`
`
`
`LG Agrees to Consolidated Filings and Discovery.
`
`3.
`Because the grounds of unpatentability and the prior art relied on in the
`
`instant Petition and the Canon Petition are the same, the case is amenable to
`
`consolidated filings and discovery, which will simplify the briefing and discovery
`
`process.
`
`LG agrees to consolidated filings for all substantive papers in the
`
`proceedings (e.g., Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response, Opposition to Motion to
`
`Amend, Motion for Observation on Cross Examination Testimony of a Reply
`
`Witness, Motion to Exclude Evidence, Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`and Reply). Specifically, LG agrees to incorporate its filings with those of the
`
`Canon Petitioners into a consolidated filing in the Canon IPR, unless the filing
`
`involves an issue unique to LG or states a point of disagreement related to the
`
`consolidated filing. In such circumstances, LG proposes to make a separate filing
`
`of no more than five pages. See Sony Corp, IPR2015-01353, Paper 11, at 7-8
`
`(allowing five pages, without prior authorization from the Board, for filings
`
`involving an issue unique to joinder petitioners or stating a point of disagreement
`
`related to the consolidated filing).
`
`LG further agrees to take a subordinate “understudy” role in discovery. LG
`
`agrees to work with the Canon Petitioners to manage any depositions within an
`
`ordinary time limit and to allow the Canon Petitioners to take the lead in
`
`13
`
`
`
`designating an attorney to conduct the cross-examination of any given witness
`
`produced by Patent Owners, and the redirect of any given witness produced by LG
`
`and the Canon Petitioners within the ordinary time limits normally allotted by the
`
`rules for one party. LG also agrees not to seek any discovery beyond that sought by
`
`the Canon Petitioners. In short, as long as the Canon IPR remains pending
`
`following joinder, no additional discovery would be incurred due to the joinder of
`
`LG. LG would only assume the primary role in discovery matters if the Canon
`
`Petitioners cease to participate in the IPR or agree to LG assuming the primary
`
`role.
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER
`LG proposes a joinder order for consideration by the Board as follows:
`
` The instant Petition will be instituted and joined with the Canon IPR;
`
`and
`
` The scheduling order for the Canon IPR will apply to the joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, LG respectfully requests that its Petition be
`
`instituted and the proceeding joined with Canon Inc. et al. v. Papst Licensing
`
`GmbH & Co., KG, IPR2016-01211. Although no additional fee is believed to be
`
`required for this Motion, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any
`
`14
`
`
`
`additional fees which may be required for this Motion to Deposit Acct. No. 50-
`
`2428.
`
`Dated: January 13, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: / Herbert H. Finn /
`Herbert H. Finn (Reg. No. 38,139)
`Jonathan E. Giroux (Reg. No. 66,639)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 456-8400
`Fax: (312) 456-8435
`finnh@gtlaw.com
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Motion for
`
`Joinder was served on January 13, 2017 via Courier and Priority Mail Express®
`
`delivery directed to the attorney of record for the patent at the following address:
`
`Anthony Meola, Jr.
`SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
`2500 Westchester Avenue, Suite 210
`Purchase, NY 10577
`
`Nicholas T. Peters
`FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
`120 South LaSalle
`Suite 1600
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`
`Courtesy Copy to Papst’s Litigation Counsel
`
`John M. Desmarais
`jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`Jonas R. McDavit
`jmcdavit@desmaraisllp.com
`Richard M. Cowell
`rcowell@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`Christopher V. Goodpastor
`cgoodpastor@dpehlaw.com
` Andrew G. DiNovo
`adinovo@dpehlaw.com
` Adam G. Price
`aprice@dpehlaw.com
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Dated: January 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / Herbert H. Finn /
`Herbert H. Finn (Reg. No. 38,139)
`Jonathan E. Giroux (Reg. No. 66,639)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 456-8400
`Fax: (312) 456-8435
`finnh@gtlaw.com
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`17
`
`