`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Cavium, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Alacritech, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`Filing Date: September 26, 2013
`Issue Date: August 12, 2014
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-01729
`
`Title: Intelligent network interface system and method for protocol processing
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`DM2\7959178.3
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cavium, Inc. (“Cavium” or “Petitioner”) submits this motion for the petition
`
`for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948 (“the ‘948 patent”) filed on July
`
`1, 2017, Case No. IPR2017-01729 (the “Petition”). The Petition was based on the
`
`identical grounds that form the basis for the pending inter partes review initiated by
`
`Intel Corporation (“Intel”) concerning the same patent, Case No. IPR2017-01395
`
`(the “Intel ‘948 IPR”).
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Petition be instituted and moves that
`
`the Petition be joined with the Intel ‘948 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 Intel ‘948 IPR as an “understudy” to Intel, only assuming an active role in
`
`the event Intel no longer is a party to these proceedings. Petitioner does not seek to
`
`alter the grounds upon which the Board will institute the Intel ‘948 IPR, and joinder
`
`will have no impact on the Intel ‘948 IPR’s existing schedule. Petitioner has
`
`conferred with counsel for Intel, which does not oppose this motion. This motion is
`
`timely as the Intel ‘948 IPR petition was only recently filed and the Board has not
`
`yet issued an institution decision. 35 U.S.C. § 21(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`Alacritech, the owner of the ‘948 patent, sued CenturyLink, Inc., Wistron
`
`Corp., and Dell Inc., in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in July
`
`DM2\7959178.3
`
`
`
`
`
`2015 for infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,124,205, 7,237,036, 7,337,241, 7,673,072,
`
`8,131,880, 8,805,948, 9,055,104, and 7,945,699 (collectively, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”). The litigations are Alacritech, Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., 2:16-cv-00693-
`
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Alacritech, Inc. v. Wistron Corp., 2:16-cv-00692-JRG-RSP
`
`(E.D. Tex.); and Alacritech, Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.).
`
`In May and June 2017, Intel filed twelve petitions for inter partes review
`
`against the Asserted Patents. See IPR Case Nos. IPR2017-01391 (‘036 patent), -
`
`01392 (‘241 patent), -01393 (‘104 patent), -01395 (‘948 patent), -01402 (‘205
`
`patent), -01405 (‘205 patent), -01406 (‘072 patent), -01409 (‘880 patent), -01410
`
`(‘880 patent), -01559 (‘699 patent), -01705 (‘072 patent), and -01713 (‘241 patent).
`
`These IPRs are awaiting institution by the Board. In addition to this motion to join
`
`IPR2017-01395, Petitioner is filing related motions to join IPR Case Nos. IPR2017-
`
`01391, -01392, -01393, -01402, -01405, -01406, -01409, -01410, -01559, -01705,
`
`and -01713.
`
`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.
`
`
`DM2\7959178.3
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`A motion 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.” 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 in support of granting the present
`
`Motion for Joinder.
`
`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 ‘948 patent without prejudice to
`
`Alacritech, Inc.; (2) Petitioner’s petition raises the same grounds for unpatentability
`
`as does Intel ‘948 IPR petition and is based on the same testimony from the same
`
`technical expert; (3) joinder would not affect the expected schedule in the Intel ‘948
`
`IPR nor would it increase the complexity of that proceeding; and (4) Petitioner is
`
`willing to accept an understudy role in the Intel ‘948 IPR to simply discovery and
`
`minimize the burden on the parties and the Board. Absent joinder, the Board will
`
`be burdened with entertaining two separate IPRs against the ‘948 patent on identical
`
`grounds, wasting resources and losing efficiency, and the parties will be subject to
`
`redundant discovery obligations. Accordingly, joinder should be granted.
`
`
`DM2\7959178.3
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Joinder Will Promote the Efficient Determination of the ‘948
`Patent’s Validity and Will Not Prejudice Alacritech
`Granting joinder and allowing Petitioner to assume an understudy role will
`
`not prejudice Alacritech or burden the Board. The Petition does not raise any issues
`
`that are not already before the Board in the Intel ‘948 IPR and thus the Board would
`
`receive consolidated filings for the joined IPRs instead of redundant submissions in
`
`separate IPRs. Likewise, Alacritech would only need to respond to consolidated
`
`filings rather than respond to separate filings from the separate petitioners. The
`
`Board has granted motions for joinder in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Decision
`
`on Joinder, IPR2014-00743 (Paper 10, June 18, 2014).
`
`Joinder is appropriate here to promote judicial efficiency and avoid
`
`unnecessary expense to the parties.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Petition Raises the Same Grounds as the Intel ‘948
`IPR
`The Petition asserts only grounds that are awaiting the Board’s institution in
`
`the Intel ‘948 IPR, supported by the same technical expert and the same testimony.
`
`There are no new arguments for the Board to consider. Likewise, the Petition relies
`
`on the same exhibits.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Will Not Affect the Schedule of the Intel ‘948 IPR
`
`Because Petitioner filed its pending IPR and corresponding motion for joinder
`
`so soon after the filing of the Intel ‘948 IPR, allowing Petitioner to join the Intel ‘948
`
`
`DM2\7959178.3
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR will not impact the expected scheduling order for the Intel ‘948 IPR or the
`
`Board’s ability to complete its review within the statutory period. Section
`
`316(a)(11) requires that IPR proceedings be completed and the Board’s final
`
`decision issued no later than one year after the date on which the Director notices
`
`the institution of the IPR. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Petitioner submits that
`
`Alacritech does not need to file a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and
`
`requests 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 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 raised in the Intel ‘948 IPR, there will
`
`be no new arguments for Alacritech to address. Alternatively, Petitioner requests
`
`that the Board accelerate the deadline for Alacritech’s Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response to respond to this Petition so the Board can address the institution of the
`
`current Petition concurrently with the Intel ‘948 IPR petition. Doing so would
`
`ensure that joinder would not impact any deadlines set in the Intel ‘948 IPR schedule.
`
`D.
`Petitioner Agrees to Assume a Limited Role
`Petitioner agrees to an understudy role and does not raise any issues that are
`
`not already before the Board. The invalidity grounds in the Petition are the same as
`
`those that are waiting the Board’s institution in the Intel ‘948 IPR and the expert
`
`
`DM2\7959178.3
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony in support of the grounds are the same. Given that Petitioner will assume
`
`an understudy role, joinder with 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). To the contrary, joinder will eliminate
`
`the need of the parties to file redundant briefs and conduct redundant discovery,
`
`including redundant depositions of the parties’ respective expert witnesses, in the
`
`separate IPRs.
`
`As long as Intel remains in the joined IPR, Petitioner agrees to assume a
`
`limited “understudy” role. Petitioner would only take on an active role if Intel were
`
`no longer a party to the IPR. Discovery will be simplified in that there will be no
`
`need for redundant depositions of the parties’ respective experts.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ‘948 patent be granted and that the proceedings be joined
`
`with IPR2017-01395.
`
`Date: July 6, 2017
`
`
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 776-7800
`Fax: (202) 776-7801
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DM2\7959178.3
`
`6
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Patrick D. McPherson/
`
`Patrick D. McPherson
`
`Reg. No. 46,255
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`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 6th day
`
`of July, 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:
`
`MARK LAUER
`Silicon Edge Law Group LLP
`7901 STONERIDGE DRIVE
`SUITE 528
`Pleasanton, California 94588
`
`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 entitled Alacritech, Inc. v.
`
`Dell Inc., 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.) as follows:
`
`Claude M Stern
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan - Redwood
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr.
`5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`
`Dated: July 6, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Patrick D. McPherson /
`Patrick D. McPherson (Reg. No. 46,255)
`
`
`DM2\7959178.3
`
`7
`
`