`Filed: July 10, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. RE40,264 E
`____________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2017-00279
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 2
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Each of the Factors Weighs in Favor of the Board Granting the
`Motion for Joinder ................................................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Joinder with the Intel IPR is Appropriate ................................... 4
`
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds of
`Unpatentability ............................................................................ 5
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the Intel IPR Trial
`Schedule ...................................................................................... 6
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery ......................... 7
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013) ........................................................... 3
`
`HTC v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC.,
`IPR2017-00512, Paper No. 12 (June 1, 2017) ...................................................... 1
`
`LG v. Memory Integrity, LLC.,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 (Oct. 5, 2015) .......................................... 4, 5, 6, 8
`
`Intel Corp. et al. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`IPR2017-00279 ............................................................................................. 1, 3, 7
`
`Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis AG et al,
`IPR2014-00550, Paper No. 38 (Apr. 10, 2015) .................................................... 8
`
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2016-01023, Paper No. 20 (Oct. 27, 2016) .................................................... 5
`
`Samsung v. Raytheon,
`IPR2016-00962, Paper No. 12 (Aug. 24, 2016) ................................................... 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................. 1, 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ................................................................................................ 1, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner” or “Samsung”) respectfully
`
`submits this Motion for Joinder, concurrently with a Petition (“the Samsung
`
`petition”) for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E (“the ’264
`
`patent”) filed herewith.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), Samsung
`
`requests institution of an inter partes review and joinder with Intel Corp. et al v.
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, IPR2017-00279 (“the Intel IPR” or “the Intel proceeding”),
`
`which the Board instituted on June 13, 2017, concerning the same claims 13-26,
`
`64, and 65 of the ’264 patent at issue in the Samsung Petition. This request is
`
`being submitted within the time set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Samsung submits that the request for joinder is consistent with the policy
`
`surrounding inter partes reviews, as it is the most expedient way to “to secure the
`
`just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.1(b); see also HTC v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC., IPR2017-
`
`00512, Paper No. 12 at 5-6 (June 1, 2017). The Samsung petition and the Intel IPR
`
`are substantially identical; they contain the same grounds (based on the same prior
`
`1
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`art combinations and supporting evidence) against the same claims.1 Further, upon
`
`joining the Intel proceeding, Samsung will act as an “understudy” and will not
`
`assume an active role unless the current petitioners cease to participate the
`
`instituted IPR. Accordingly, the proposed joinder will neither unduly complicate
`
`the Intel IPR nor delay its schedule. As such, the joinder will promote judicial
`
`efficiency in determining the patentability of the ’264 patent without prejudice to
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`1.
`
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’264 patent against Petitioner and
`
`others in lawsuits (now stayed) in the Northern District of California:
`
`Case Nos. 5:16-cv-01578-BLF, 5:16-cv-1579-BLF, 5:16-cv-1580-
`
`BLF, 5:16-cv-1581-BLF, and 5:16-cv-02252-BLF.
`
`2.
`
`Lam Research Corporation filed IPR petitions on the ’264 patent,
`
`including
`
`IPR2015-01759;
`
`IPR2015-01764;
`
`IPR2015-01766;
`
`IPR2015-01768; IPR2016-00468; IPR2016-00469; and IPR2016-
`
`00470, where IPR2015-01764 and IPR2015-01768 were instituted but
`
`terminated after their oral arguments.
`
`
`1 The Samsung petition includes one cosmetic difference, in that it does not repeat
`
`certain claim language in section headers.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner has filed IPR petitions on the ’264 patent, including
`
`IPR2016-01510 and IPR2016-01512, where the latter proceeding was
`
`instituted on February 14, 2017.
`
`4.
`
`On December 2, 2016, Intel Corporation, Micron Technology, Inc.,
`
`and GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2017-00279) (“the Intel petition”) requesting cancellation of
`
`claims 13-26, 64, and 65 of the ʼ264 patent.
`
`5.
`
`On June 13, 2017 the Board instituted the Intel petition for inter
`
`partes review as to claims 13-26, 64, and 65.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Legal Standard
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the Board may grant a motion for joining an
`
`inter partes review petition with another inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). The Board, in determining whether to exercise its discretion to
`
`grant joinder, considers whether the joinder motion: (1) sets forth the reasons why
`
`joinder is appropriate; (2) identifies any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in
`
`the petition; (3) explains what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) addresses specifically how briefing and
`
`discovery may be simplified. See Frequently Asked Question (“FAQ”) H5 on the
`
`Board’s website at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp; see also Dell,
`
`3
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29,
`
`2013) at 3.
`
`B.
`
`Each of the Factors Weighs in Favor of the Board Granting the
`Motion for Joinder
`
`All four factors weigh in favor of granting the motion for Petitioner. The
`
`Samsung Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the Intel IPR.
`
`Samsung does not present any new grounds of unpatentability. Additionally, as all
`
`issues are substantively identical and Samsung will act as an “understudy,” joinder
`
`will have minimal or no impact on the pending schedule of the Intel IPR. See LG v.
`
`Memory Integrity, LLC., IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 at 6 (Oct. 5, 2015)
`
`(granting motion for joinder where petitioners requested an “understudy” role).
`
`Moreover, the briefing and discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a
`
`single proceeding. Accordingly, joinder is appropriate.
`
`Joinder with the Intel IPR is Appropriate
`
`1.
`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, IPR2016-00962, Paper No. 12 at 9 (Aug. 24,
`
`2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, joinder with the Intel IPR
`
`is appropriate because the Samsung Petition introduces identical arguments and the
`
`same grounds raised in the existing Intel proceeding (i.e., challenges the same
`
`4
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`claims of the same patent, relies on the same expert declaration, and is based on the
`
`same grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the Intel Petition). Other
`
`than minor differences related to formalities of a different party filing the petition,
`
`there are no changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or arguments introduced in
`
`the Intel Petition. Because these proceedings are substantively identical, good
`
`cause exists for joining this proceeding with the Intel IPR so that the Board,
`
`consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), can efficiently “secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution” of the Samsung and Intel Petitions in a single proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Does Not Propose New Grounds of
`Unpatentability
`
`The Samsung Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the Intel
`
`IPR (i.e., challenging the same claims of the same patent, relying on the same
`
`expert declaration, and on the same grounds and combinations of prior art
`
`submitted in the Intel Petition). See LG, IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 at 6
`
`(granting institution of IPR and motion for joinder where petitioners relied “on the
`
`same prior art, same arguments, and same evidence, including the same expert and
`
`a substantively identical declaration”); see also Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v.
`
`Novartis AG, IPR2016-01023, Paper No. 20 at 14 (Oct. 27, 2016) (granting motion
`
`for joinder where petitioners “do not assert any new ground of unpatentability that
`
`is not already being considered in [an instituted IPR proceeding], rely on the same
`
`5
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`arguments and evidence, and do not require any modification to the existing
`
`schedule.”)
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the Intel IPR Trial
`Schedule
`
`Joinder will have minimal impact, if any, on the Intel IPR trial schedule
`
`because the Samsung Petition presents no new issues or grounds of unpatentability.
`
`See LG, IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 at 6 (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,
`
`Petitioner explicitly consents to the existing trial schedule. There are no new issues
`
`for the Board to address, and Patent Owner will not be required to present any
`
`additional responses or arguments.
`
`The Patent Owner’s Response will also not be negatively impacted because
`
`the issues presented in the Samsung Petition are identical to the issues presented in
`
`the Intel Petition. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional
`
`analysis or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to the
`
`petition in the Intel IPR. Also, because the Samsung Petition relies on the same
`
`expert and the same declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the
`
`proposed joined proceeding.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`Accordingly, joinder with the Intel IPR does not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule.
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`
`4.
`Samsung explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role which will simply
`
`briefing and discovery. Specifically, Samsung explicitly agrees, upon joining the
`
`Intel proceeding, that the following conditions, as previously approved by the
`
`Board in similar circumstances, shall apply so long as the current petitioners in
`
`IPR2016-00279 remain active parties:
`
`a) all filings by Samsung in the joined proceeding be consolidated with
`
`the filings of the current petitioners, unless a filing concerns issues
`
`solely involving Samsung;
`
`b) Samsung shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`
`instituted by the Board in the Intel IPR, or introduce any argument or
`
`discovery not already introduced by the current petitioners;
`
`c) Samsung shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and
`
`the current petitioners concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`
`d) Samsung at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross examination
`
`or redirect time beyond that permitted under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53
`
`or any agreement between Patent Owner and the current petitioners.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`See Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis AG et al, IPR2014-00550, Paper No.
`
`38 at 5 (Apr. 10, 2015). Unless and until the current petitioners cease to participate
`
`in the instituted IPR proceeding, Samsung will not assume an active role therein.
`
`Thus, by Samsung accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and the
`
`current petitioners can comply with the existing trial schedule without needing any
`
`duplicative efforts by the Board or the Patent Owner. These steps will minimize
`
`any potential complications or delay that potentially may result by joinder. See LG,
`
`IPR2015-01353, Paper No. 11 at 6-7 (granting IPR and motion for joinder because
`
`“joinder would increase efficiency by eliminating duplicative filings and
`
`discovery, and would reduce costs and burdens on the parties as well as the Board”
`
`where petitioners agreed to an “understudy” role.). Samsung is further willing to
`
`agree to any other reasonable conditions the Board deems necessary.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the factors discussed above, Samsung respectfully requests that the
`
`Board grant the Samsung Petition and grant joinder with the Intel IPR.
`
`Dated: July 10, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 10, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2017-
`
`00279to be served via express mail on the Patent Owner at the following
`
`correspondence address of record as listed on PAIR:
`
`Daniel L. Flamm
`
`476 Green View Drive
`
`Walnut Creek CA 94596
`
`A courtesy copy was also sent via electronic mail to the Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel listed below:
`
`George Summerfield
`STADHEIM & GREAR, LTD.
`400 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Summerfield@StadheimGrear.com
`
`Christopher Frerking
`174 Rumford Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`A courtesy copy was also sent via electronic mail to the following counsel
`
`for Petitioners in IPR2017-00279:
`
`Jonathan McFarland
`Chad Campbell
`Tyler Bowen
`Daniel Keese
`
`1
`
`
`
`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00279
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`jmcfarland@perkinscoie.com
`CSCampbell@perkinscoie.com
`tbowen@perkinscoie.com
`dkeese@perkinscoie.com
`Intel-Flamm-Service-IPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Jared Bobrow
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`jason.lang@weil.com
`Jared.bobrow@weil.com
`micron.flamm.service@weil.com
`
`David M. Tennant
`Nathan Zhang
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`nathan.zhang@whitecase.com
`WCGlobalFoundriesFlammTeam@whitecase.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`
`
`
`2
`
`