throbber
Paper No. __
`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 IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`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 ................................................................................. 3 
`
`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 ...................................................................................... 5 
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery ......................... 6 
`
`IV.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`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, 7
`
`Intel Corp. et al v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`IPR2017-00280 ............................................................................................. 1, 2, 6
`
`Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis AG et al,
`IPR2014-00550, Paper No. 38 (Apr. 10, 2015) .................................................... 7
`
`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 IPR2017-00280
`
`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, IPR2017-00280 (“the Intel IPR” or “the Intel proceeding”),
`
`which the Board instituted on June 13, 2017, concerning the same claims 27-36,
`
`51-55, 66, and 68-69 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
`
`art combinations and supporting evidence) against the same claims. 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
`
`1
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`(IPR2017-00280) (“the Intel petition”) requesting cancellation of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69 of the ʼ264 patent.
`
`5.
`
`On June 13, 2017 the Board instituted the Intel petition for inter
`
`partes review as to claims 27-36, 51-55, 66, and 68-69.
`
`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,
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`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
`
`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,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`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
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`IPR2016-00280 remain active parties:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`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.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Dated: July 10, 2017
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`
`
`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-
`
`00280 to 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 IPR2017-00280:
`
`Jonathan McFarland
`Chad Campbell
`Tyler Bowen
`Daniel Keese
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`1
`
`

`

`Samsung’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2017-00280
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket