`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, Inc.
`ZTE CORPORATION, and ZTE (USA), Inc.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01081
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED INSTITUTED INTER PARTES
`REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Prior authorization for the motion for joinder was not required
`
`Patent Owner first argues that the motion for joinder should be denied
`
`because prior authorization was required. Paper 7 at 6-7. This is incorrect. “No
`
`prior authorization is required for filing the motion for joinder with the petition.”
`
`Frequently Asked Question H5, https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-
`
`process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/ptab-e2e-frequently-asked-questions (last
`
`visited May 12, 2017). The Trial Practice Guide agrees: no authorization is
`
`required for motions filed with a petition. Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157
`
`at 48762 (exceptions to the requirement for prior authorization include “motions
`
`where it is impractical to seek prior Board authorization” such as “motions filed
`
`with a petition.”). The motion for joinder was filed with the petition in this case.
`
`Therefore no prior authorization was required.
`
`II. The Board has correctly interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and (c)
`Patent Owner’s only other argument against joinder is to dispute the Board’s
`
`well-settled interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and (c) and the related regulations.
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner contends that the one-year time bar applies to petitions
`
`filed with requests for joinder despite the plain language in § 315(b) stating that it
`
`does not. Paper 7 at 7-11. Patent Owner is incorrect.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Section 315(b) bars intuition on a petition filed more than one year after the
`
`petition was served with a complaint, but it expressly states that the one-year bard
`
`does not apply to one involving a request for joinder:
`
`(b) Patent Owner's Action.—An inter partes review may not be
`instituted 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. The time limitation set forth in the
`preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under
`subsection (c).
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (emphasis added). The final sentence is directly linked to the
`
`first sentence by the words “the preceding sentence.” The only “time limitation”
`
`set forth in the first sentence relates to the filing of a petition for inter partes
`
`review. That is consistent with § 315(c), which states that a party requesting
`
`joinder does so by filing a petition. Id.at § 315(c) ("Joinder. – [T]he director . . .
`
`may join as a party to the inter partes review any person who properly files a
`
`petition . . . ."). Thus, the “time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence” that
`
`“does not apply to a request for joinder” is the time limit to file a petition for inter
`
`partes review accompanied with a request to join an instituted proceeding.
`
`The Board has affirmed that interpretation on many occasions. IPR2016-
`
`00062, Paper 14 at 3-4; IPR2015-00825, Paper 20 at 10-12; IPR2014-00557, Paper
`
`10 at 14-15; Target Corporation v. Destination Maternity Corporation, IPR2014-
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`00508, Paper 28 at 15; IPR2013-00386, Paper 16 at 4-6; IPR2013-00385, Paper 17
`
`at 4-6; IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 at 3-4; IPR2013-00250, Paper 24 at 3 (listed on
`
`PTAB e2e as Paper 25); IPR2013-00109, Paper 15 at 3-4. Indeed, as patent owner
`
`acknowledges, this interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is inherent in the Board’s
`
`rules for conduct of inter partes review, which state that:
`
`(b) Request for joinder. Joinder may be requested by a patent owner
`or petitioner. Any request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under
`§42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter
`partes review for which joinder is requested. The time period set
`forth in §42.101(b) shall not apply when the petition is
`accompanied by a request for joinder.
`37 C.F.R. §42.122(b) (emphasis added); see also Paper 7 at 10-11, fn 1
`
`(acknowledging that the Board’s regulations expressly contradict Patent Owner’s
`
`position).
`
`Patent Owner’s interpretation is also incorrect because it would render the
`
`statute incomplete and illogical. Patent Owner apparently contends that "request
`
`for joinder" in § 315(b) refers only to a joinder motion, not the accompanying
`
`petition, and thus the time-bar exception applies only to the motion. Yet § 315
`
`makes no mention of a joinder motion, let alone a time limitation on filing such a
`
`motion. In contrast, it does state that joinder is achieved by filing a petition, see §
`
`315(c), and it expressly provides a time limitation on filing a petition, see § 315(b).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`The only logical reading of "request for joinder" that gives meaning to that
`
`provision is therefore one that refers to the petition itself.
`
`Patent Owner also wrongly argues that because § 315(c) requires that the
`
`joinder petition be “properly file[d] under section 311,” and because § 311 states
`
`that petitions must be filed "[s]ubject to the provisions of this chapter," the joinder
`
`petition must meet § 315(b)’s time bar for the petition to be properly filed as
`
`required by § 315(c). Paper 7 at 8-9. The Board has considered, and rejected, that
`
`argument. E.g., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 5-6 (rejecting the argument that
`
`“properly fil[ing] a petition under section 311” requires “filing a petition within
`
`one year as required by Section 315(b)”). Indeed, Patent Owner’s argument is
`
`circular and effectively reads-out the express exception in the second sentence of §
`
`315(b). U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corporation, 551 U.S. 128, 137 (2007) (“We
`
`must have regard to all the words used by Congress, and as far as possible give
`
`effect to them.”). Thus, a joinder petition—that is, a petition filed as a request for
`
`joinder—is not subject to the time-bar in § 315(b), and it is "properly filed" if it
`
`meets the requirements enumerated in § 311.
`
`Finally, despite Patent Owner's argument, see Paper 7 at 9-10, the timing of
`
`when the Director may join a party to an instituted proceeding does not dictate or
`
`support Patent Owner's tortured interpretation. The provisions of § 315(c) merely
`
`require that for a joinder petition, like any other petition, the Director may only
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`institute a proceeding after considering a petition filed under § 311, considering a
`
`preliminary response (if any) filed under § 313, and determining that a reasonable
`
`likelihood exists that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Patent Owner's contention that the
`
`Director has "no authority" to institute a joinder petition filed more than one year
`
`after service is premised on the same incorrect argument discussed above, i.e., that
`
`the second sentence of § 315(b) does not apply. See Paper 7 at 10 (citing § 315(b)
`
`to contend that "[p]rior to joinder, the Director would have no authority . . .").
`
`Thus, Patent Owner's argument fails for the same reasons.
`
`
`Dated: May 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Steven A. Moore /
`
`Steven A. Moore (Reg. No. 55,462)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`501 W. Broadway, Suite 1100
`San Diego, Ca 92101
`Telephone: 619.544.3112
`Facsimile: 619.236.1995
`Email: steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Brian Nash (Reg. No. 58,105)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: 512.580.9629
`Facsimile: 512.580.9601
`Email: brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`
`5
`
`
`
`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 May 12, 2017
`
`Manner of service Electronic Mail
`
`Documents served PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER TO RELATED
`INSTITUTED INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35
`U.S.C. 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`Persons served Terry A. Saad (tsaad@bcpc-law.com)
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`Daniel F. Olejko (dolejko@bcpc-law.com)
`Nicholas C. Kliewer (nkliewer@bcpc-law.com)
`BCPCserv@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Steven A. Moore /
`Steven A. Moore (Reg. No. 55,462)
`Email: steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`501 W. Broadway, Suite 1100
`San Diego, Ca 92101
`Telephone: 619.544.3112
`Facsimile: 619.236.1995
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`