`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`------------------------
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`------------------------
`
`D-Link Systems, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`Patent owner,
`
`------------------------
`
`Case: Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`------------------------
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`Motion for Joinder
`
`I.
`
`Statement of the Precise Relief Requested
`Petitioner D-Link Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) moves for joinder of its
`
`concurrently filed petition (“Petition”) for inter partes review of claims 1, 5, 31,
`
`43, 70, 72, 74, 75, 83, 103, 104, 111, 123, and 125 (“the challenged claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107 B2 (“the ’107 patent”), based on the identical grounds
`
`that form the basis for the pending inter partes review initiated by Juniper
`
`Networks, Inc. concerning the same patent, Case No. IPR2016-01391 (the “Juniper
`
`IPR”).
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Petition be instituted and move that
`
`the Petition be joined with the Juniper IPR pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b). Petitioner merely requests an opportunity to join
`
`with the Juniper IPR as an “understudy” to Juniper, only assuming a more active
`
`role in the event Juniper settles with Patent Owner Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Chrimar”). Petitioner does not seek to alter the grounds upon which the Board
`
`has already instituted the Juniper IPR, and joinder will have no impact on the IPR’s
`
`existing schedule. This motion is timely as it was filed within one month of the
`
`institution of IPR2016-01391. 35 U.S.C. §§ 21(b), 315(b), 315(c); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.122(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`Motion for Joinder
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The ’107 patent has been the subject of 51 civil actions filed in the Eastern
`
`District of Michigan, Eastern District of Texas, and Northern District of California.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 1012 is a list identifying each of these civil actions.
`
`In July 2016, Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) filed four petitions for inter
`
`partes review against the Asserted Patents. See IPR Case Nos. IPR2016-01389
`
`(‘012 patent), -01399 (‘760 patent), -01391 (‘107 patent), and -01397 (‘838
`
`patent).
`
`The Board instituted IPR2016-01391 on December 22, 2016. See Paper 9.
`
`The Board instituted IPR2016-01397 and -01399 on January 4, 2017. See Paper 8,
`
`Paper 8. IPR2016-01389 is pending as of January 17, 2017. See Paper 1.
`
`Several other IPRs have been filed against the Asserted Patents and are
`
`instituted or awaiting institution. The instituted IPRs include IPR2016-00569
`
`(‘107 patent), filed by the AMX, LLC on February 12, 2016, IPR2016-00574 (‘760
`
`patent), filed by AMX, LLC on February 29, 2016, IPR2016-00983 (‘012 patent),
`
`filed by Dell, Inc. on April 29, 2016, IPR2016-01151 (‘838 patent), filed by Dell
`
`Inc. on June 3, 2016 and IPR2016-01425 (‘012 patent), filed by D-Link Systems,
`
`Inc. on July 13, 2016. The IPRs awaiting institution include IPR2016-01757 (‘107
`
`patent), -01758 (‘838 patent), and -01759 (‘760 patent), filed by Aerohive
`
`Networks, Inc. on September 8, 2016.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`Motion for Joinder
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD AND APPLICABLE RULES
`Joinder is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads as follows:
`
`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.
`
` motion for joinder should “(1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
` A
`
`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.” See Decision on Joinder, IPR2013-00385 (Paper No. 17, July
`
`29, 2013); see also Order Authorizing Joinder, IPR2013-00004 (Paper No. 15,
`
`April 24, 2013.) Petitioner submits the factors outlined below support granting of
`
`the present Motion.
`
`IV. PETITIONER MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTION FOR
`JOINDER
`Petitioner submits that (1) joinder is appropriate because it will promote
`
`efficient determination of the validity of the ‘107 patent without prejudice to
`
`Juniper or Chrimar; (2) Petitioner’s petition raises the same grounds for
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`Motion for Joinder
`
`unpatentability as does Juniper’s petition; (3) joinder would not affect the pending
`
`schedule in the Juniper IPR nor would it increase the complexity of that
`
`proceeding; and (4) Petitioner is willing to accept an understudy role in the Juniper
`
`IPR to minimize burden and schedule impact. Absent joinder, Petitioner could be
`
`prejudiced if the Juniper IPR is terminated before the Board issues a final written
`
`decision. Accordingly, joinder should be granted.
`
`A.
`
`Joinder Will Promote the Efficient Determination of the ‘107
`Patent’s Validity and Will Not Prejudice Juniper or Chrimar
`Granting joinder and allowing Petitioner to assume an understudy role will
`
`not prejudice Juniper or Chrimar. The Petition does not raise any issues that are not
`
`already before the Board in the Juniper IPR. Joinder thus would not affect the
`
`timing of the Juniper IPR or content of Chrimar’s responses. The Board has
`
`granted motions for joinder in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Institution of Inter
`
`Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder, IPR2015-00543 (Paper 12, March
`
`6, 2015); Decision on Joinder, IPR2014-00949 (Paper 16, January 28, 2015);
`
`Decision on Joinder, IPR2015-00176 (Paper 12, November 25, 2014); Decision on
`
`Joinder, IPR2014-00743 (Paper 10, June 18, 2014). Petitioner has notified counsel
`
`for Juniper of this motion, but has not yet received Juniper's position.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`Motion for Joinder
`
`B.
`Petitioner’s Petition Raises the Same Grounds as the Juniper IPR
`The Petition asserts only grounds that the Board has already instituted in the
`
`Juniper IPR. There are no new arguments for the Board to consider. Likewise, the
`
`Petition relies on the same exhibits and expert declaration as the Juniper IPR.
`
`C.
`Joinder Will Not Affect the Schedule of the Juniper IPR
`Allowing Petitioner to join the Juniper IPR will not impact the Board’s
`
`ability to complete its review within the statutory period and according to the
`
`schedule already set in the Juniper IPR. Section 316(a)(11) requires that IPR
`
`proceedings be completed and the Board’s final decision issued within one year of
`
`the institution of the IPR. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Petitioner agrees to an
`
`understudy role and do not raise any issues that are not already before the Board.
`
`The invalidity grounds in the Petition are the same as those the Board already
`
`instituted in the Juniper IPR. Given that Petitioner will assume an understudy role,
`
`their addition to this IPR proceeding will not introduce any additional arguments,
`
`briefing, or need for discovery. See Decision on Joinder, IPR2013-00495 (Paper
`
`13, Sept. 16, 2013).
`
`Petitioner submits that Chrimar does not need to file a Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, and request that the Board proceed without one. This is
`
`consistent with the Board’s Order in IPR2013-00256 (Paper 8, June 13, 2013),
`
`which allowed the Patent Owner to file a preliminary response addressing only
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`Motion for Joinder
`
`those points raised in the new petition that were different from those in the granted
`
`petition. Here, because the invalidity grounds in the Petition are identical to those
`
`instituted in the Juniper IPR, there are no new arguments for Chrimar to address.
`
`Chrimar already addressed the invalidity grounds in the Petition in its Preliminary
`
`Response to the Juniper IPR. Alternatively, the Board could add an additional
`
`deadline for Chrimar to respond to this Petition. This deadline would not impact
`
`other deadlines in the schedule.
`
`D.
`Petitioner Agree to Assume a Limited Role
`As long as Juniper remains in the joined IPR, Petitioner agrees to assume a
`
`limited “understudy” role. Petitioner would only take on a more active role if
`
`Juniper were no longer a party to the IPR. Petitioner presents no new grounds for
`
`invalidity and their presence in the proceedings will not introduce any additional
`
`arguments, briefing or need for discovery.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`Motion for Joinder
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ‘107 patent be granted and that the proceedings be
`
`joined with IPR2016-01391.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Date: January 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David Hoffman/
`David Hoffman, Reg. No. 54,174
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`Motion for Joinder
`
`
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d)
`
`
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Section 42.6, that a complete copy of
`
`the attached Motion for Joinder is being served via Federal Express on the 23rd
`
`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,
`
`upon the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of record with the
`
`USPTO as follows:
`
`G. Gregory Schivley (Reg. No. 27,382)
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Dr, Suite 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`
`and upon counsel of record for the Patent Owner in the litigation pending before
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas as follows:
`
`Justin S. Cohen
`Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
`One Arts Plaza
`1722 Routh St., Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David Hoffman/
`David Hoffman, Reg. No. 54,174
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`- 8 -
`
`