`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`
`Entered: January 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`Denying Motion for Additional Discovery
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively,
`“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) requested an inter partes review of claims 1 and
`3–16 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (“the ’913
`patent”). Paper 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Microsoft also filed a Motion for
`Joinder (Paper 3, “Joinder Motion” or “Joinder Mot.”) requesting that it be
`joined to IPR2017-00386 (“the 386 IPR”), a pending inter partes review
`involving claims 1 and 3–16 of the ’913 patent.
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary
`Response to the Petition. With our authorization, however, Patent Owner
`filed a Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 12, “Discovery Motion” or
`“Discovery Mot.”). Microsoft filed an Opposition to the Motion for
`Additional Discovery. Paper 14 (“Discovery Opposition” or “Discovery
`Opp.”). Together with Microsoft and with our authorization, Patent Owner
`also filed a Joint Stipulation on the Motion for Joinder, wherein Patent
`Owner states that it does not oppose Microsoft’s Joinder Motion. Paper 7
`(“Joinder Joint Stipulation”), 3.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless it is determined that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” Based on the information presented in the Petition, we are
`persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to claims 1 and 3–16. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes
`review of claims 1 and 3–16 on the grounds specified below. We further
`grant Petitioner’s Joinder Motion and deny Patent Owner’s Discovery
`Motion for the reasons discussed below.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS OF PETITION
`A. Overview of the ’913 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’913 patent relates to entering characters on a handheld mobile
`device via a keypad. Ex. 1001, 1:18–21. Figure 1 of the ’913 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a default display state of a keypad 100 with twelve
`keys 102, where each key is associated with a primary character 104 and a
`plurality of secondary characters 106. Id. at 3:25–28. The primary
`characters in Figure 1 are the numbers and symbols displayed on the keys of
`the keypad. Id. at 3:28–31. The secondary characters in Figure 1 are the
`letters displayed in groups below each key. Id. at 3:31–37.
`In one embodiment, a user selects a primary character by initiating a
`“quick tapping” of the corresponding key for a pre-determined time period,
`for instance 0.2 seconds. Id. at 6:1–6. If the user’s tap is longer than the
`pre-determined time period, the keypad responds to the user’s tap by
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`entering into a second state, wherein secondary characters associated with
`the selected key are made available. Id. at 4:4–6, 6:3–6. Figure 2 of the
`’913 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a second display state of the keypad after a first key
`selection by a user. Id. at 3:42–43. In this instance, the user has selected the
`key associated with primary character ‘5’, causing the primary character ‘5’
`to remain displayed on the selected key and causing the associated
`secondary characters ‘j’, ‘k’, and ‘l’ each to be displayed on an adjacent key.
`Id. at 3:44–52. The user may now select any of the displayed characters by
`tapping on the corresponding key, thereby providing “quick and accurate
`character input wherein secondary characters are available with only two
`key selections.” Id. at 3:63–65, 4:4–6. “Following a character input, the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`keypad of [Figure] 2 is returned to the default display state as shown in
`[Figure] 1.” Id. at 3:60–62.
`Illustrative Claim
`B.
`Claims 1, 3, and 4 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of
`the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
`1.
`A method for inputting a character to a device, the
`device including a keypad, the keypad including a plurality of
`keys, at least one of the keys has a primary character, a plurality
`of secondary characters and an associated display area, the
`keypad in a default state displaying the primary character
`associated with the at least one key in the associated display area,
`the method comprising acts of:
`in the default state,
`returning the primary character as an input character
`in response to selection of the at least one key
`for a period shorter than a predetermined time
`period;
`switching to a second state after detecting a first key
`selection of the at least one key for a period
`longer than the predetermined time period;
`in the second state:
`the secondary characters
`displaying each of
`associated with the first selected key in a
`respective display area;
`detecting a second key selection;
`selecting for the input character the secondary
`character associated with the second key
`selection; and
`returning the keypad to the default state.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`Related Proceedings and Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`C.
`Petitioner identifies several actions for infringement of the ’913 patent
`pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
`Pet. 3.
`The ’913 patent is also the subject of the 386 IPR, which we instituted
`on June 12, 2017 on the following two grounds of unpatentability:
`1. Obviousness of claims 1 and 3–16 over Sakata II1; and
`2. Obviousness of claims 1 and 3–16 over Sakata II and Buxton2.
`386 IPR, Paper 8, 19. We incorporate herein our analysis from the Decision
`on Institution in the 386 IPR.
`The instant Petition challenges the same claims on identical grounds
`of unpatentability, and relies on the same evidence and arguments as
`presented in the 386 IPR. Pet. 1; Joinder Mot. 1–2. Petitioner states:
`This Petition proposes the same grounds of rejection that were
`proposed in the [386] IPR and that were instituted by the Board
`in the [386] IPR. In fact, the Petition is entirely similar to [the
`386 IPR]’s petition with respect to the adopted grounds,
`including the same analysis, prior art, exhibits, and expert
`testimony.
`
`
`Joinder Mot. 3. Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response and has
`not presented any arguments regarding the merits of the Petition beyond the
`argument raised in its Discovery Motion, in which Patent Owner alleges that
`“HTC” (collective of HTC Corp. and HTC America Inc.) may be a real party
`interest to the instant Petition. As discussed below, we deny Patent Owner’s
`Discovery Motion. See infra Section IV. Because Patent Owner raises no
`
`
`1 Sakata, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application No. 2000-148366
`(“Sakata II”) (Ex. 1004).
`2 Buxton, U.S. 6,094,197; iss. July 25, 2000 (“Buxton”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`further arguments against the Petition and because the Petition is virtually
`identical to the 386 IPR petition, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated
`sufficiently under 35 U.S.C. § 314 that an inter partes review should be
`instituted in this proceeding on the same grounds of unpatentability as the
`grounds on which we instituted inter partes review in the 386 IPR.
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S JOINDER MOTION
`An inter partes review may be joined with another inter partes
`review, subject to certain statutory provisions:
`(c) 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
`parties review under section 314.
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (A request for joinder must
`be filed, as a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, no later than one month after
`the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested).
`A motion for joinder should (1) set forth 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, e.g., Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00004, Paper 15. Petitioner, as movant, bears the burden of
`proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`As an initial matter, the present Joinder Motion meets the timing
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) because it was filed on July 12, 2017,
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`which is not later than one month after the 386 IPR was instituted on June
`12, 2017. Compare Joinder Mot. 8–10, with 386 IPR, Paper 8.
`Additionally, the present Petition challenges the same claims of the
`same patent as those under inter partes review in the 386 IPR, and the
`Petition also asserts the same grounds of unpatentability based on the same
`prior art and the same evidence, including the same testimony by the same
`declarant. See, e.g., Joinder Mot. 4 (“Microsoft’s Petition is not only limited
`to the same grounds adopted by the Board in the [386] IPR, but also relies
`on exactly the same analysis, prior art, exhibits, and expert testimony as that
`submitted [in the 386 IPR].”). The Petition does not assert any other
`grounds of unpatentability not already of record in the 386 IPR. Id. at 6.
`Petitioner asserts that granting joinder will not impact negatively the existing
`scheduling order in the 386 IPR. Mot. 6–7. According to Petitioner, joinder
`will promote the efficient determination of validity of the challenged claims
`of the ’913 patent, as well as simplify briefing and discovery. Id. at 5.
`Finally, Petitioner states that it “does not oppose Microsoft’s motion to join
`IPR2017-01766 with IPR2017-00386.” Joinder Joint Stipulation 3.
`In their Joinder Joint Stipulation, the parties agree on a proposal for
`how the 386 IPR would proceed if Microsoft is joined to that proceeding.
`Specifically, the parties agreed that:
`2. The joint proceeding will be based exclusively on the petition
`and evidence filed by Google[3] in IPR2017-00386[;]
`3. If Microsoft receives any time for cross and re-direct
`examination of any witness or for oral argument, at Google’s
`discretion, such time will be taken from the time allotted to
`Google in IPR2017-00386[; and]
`
`3 The parties identify Google Inc. as the lead petitioner in the 386 IPR. See
`generally Joinder Joint Stipulation.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`4. The submissions, page limits and word counts currently
`allotted in IPR2017-00386 for any written work product will not
`be affected by joinder, with the exception that, within 5 business
`days following the filing of any brief containing argument by
`Google, Microsoft may separately file up to five pages directed
`only to points of disagreement it may have with Google, and
`[Patent Owner] may thereafter respond within 5 business days
`with a corresponding number of pages. Microsoft may not
`separately advance any arguments in furtherance of those
`advanced by Google in the proceeding.
`
`
`Joinder Joint Stipulation 3. The parties state that the lead petitioner in the
`386 IPR, Google, does not oppose joinder generally, but does oppose the
`parties’ proposal that would allow Microsoft to file a separate brief of up to
`five pages directed to points of disagreement with Google. Id. at 2.
`Based on the facts and circumstances discussed above, we determine
`Petitioner has established good cause for joining this proceeding with the
`386 IPR. Specifically, we determine that Patent Owner will not be
`prejudiced unduly by the joinder of these proceedings, and joining
`Petitioner’s identical challenges to those in the 386 IPR will lead to greater
`efficiency, while conserving the resources of both the parties and the Board.
`Consequently, granting the Joinder Motion under these circumstances would
`help “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of these
`proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). For the above reasons, we conclude
`that the Joinder Motion should be granted.
`We also determine that, after the joinder of Microsoft, the proceeding
`in the 386 IPR generally will be conducted in accordance with the parties’
`agreement discussed above. Specifically, the proceeding in 386 IPR will be
`based exclusively on the petition and evidence submitted by the current
`petitioners in that case, and the parties will adhere to the existing schedule in
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`the 386 IPR. All filings by Microsoft in the 386 IPR shall be consolidated
`with the filings of the current petitioners in that case, and the page limits and
`word counts set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 shall apply to all consolidated
`filings. If, however, Microsoft has a point of disagreement related to a
`consolidated filing, Microsoft may request authorization from the Board to
`file a separate brief of no more than five pages.4 If we authorize Microsoft
`to file a separate brief, Patent Owner may request authorization to file a
`response of no more than five pages. If an oral hearing is scheduled in the
`386 IPR, all petitioners shall present a consolidated argument at the hearing.
`Microsoft is bound by any discovery agreements, including any
`deposition arrangements, between Patent Owner and the current petitioners
`in the 386 IPR, and Microsoft shall not seek any discovery beyond that
`sought by the current petitioners in the 386 IPR without first seeking
`permission from the Board. Patent Owner shall not be required to provide
`any additional discovery or deposition time as a result of the joinder. We
`expect Microsoft, the current petitioners in the 386 IPR, and Patent Owner to
`meet and confer regarding any disputes between them and to contact the
`Board only if such matters cannot be resolved.
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Because Microsoft is required to request authorization from the Board
`before filing a separate brief in the 386 IPR, Google and the other current
`petitioners will have an opportunity to indicate to the Board whether they
`oppose the requested brief.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`IV. ANALYSIS OF PATENT OWNER’S DISCOVERY MOTION
`Patent Owner asserts in its Discovery Motion that “[t]he evidence
`indicates, beyond mere possibility, that evidence may exist to establish that,
`at least, (i) earlier IPR filers (Google, Acer, ASUS, and/or HTC) funded, in
`part, the current challenge, and (ii) at least one of Acer, ASUS, and HTC
`directed this IPR.” Discovery Mot. 1. Petitioner responds that, although
`Patent Owner “wants to argue that Microsoft is a real-party-in-interest
`(‘RPI’) with a third party,” Patent Owner’s “requested discovery is based on
`nothing more than speculation.” Discovery Opp. 1.
`In our authorization of this Discovery Motion, we “direct[ed] Patent
`Owner to Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case IPR2012-
`00001, slip op. at 6–16 (Paper 26) (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013), for an explanation
`of the factors that we consider in connection with a motion for additional
`discovery.” Paper 11, 3. More specifically, we required that Patent Owner
`“identify in its motion the discovery being requested and explain why the
`discovery is necessary in the interest of justice, specifically identifying the
`evidence already in Patent Owner’s possession tending to show beyond mere
`speculation that something useful will be uncovered by the requested
`discovery.” Id. Having reviewed Patent Owner’s Discovery Motion and
`Petitioner’s Opposition thereto, we determine Patent Owner has not made
`the requisite showing.
`Our procedures are designed “to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding” and thus provide for limited
`discovery during inter partes reviews. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1(b), 42.51. “The
`test for a party seeking additional discovery in an inter partes review is a
`strict one.” Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Case IPR2015-01545, slip op. at
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`4 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2015) (Paper 9). “The moving party must show that such
`additional discovery is in the interest of justice.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i).
`The Board has identified various factors to be considered in determining
`whether requested discovery is necessary in the interests of justice. See
`Garmin Int’l, Inc., Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper 26, slip op. at 6–7.
`These factors include whether the requested discovery: (1) is based on more
`than a mere possibility of finding something useful; (2) seeks the other
`party’s litigation positions or the basis for those positions; (3) seeks
`information that reasonably can be generated without the discovery requests;
`(4) is easily understandable; and (5) is overly burdensome to answer. Id.
`The first of these factors weighs decisively in our consideration of Patent
`Owner’s Discovery Motion:
`More Than a Possibility and Mere Allegation—The mere
`possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation that
`something useful will be found, are insufficient to demonstrate
`that the requested discovery is necessary in the interest of justice.
`The party requesting discovery should already be in possession
`of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact
`something useful will be discovered. [In this context, “useful”
`means “favorable in substantive value to a contention of the party
`moving for discovery.”]
`
`
`Id.
`
`Much of Patent Owner’s Discovery Motion addresses the purported
`relationships between Microsoft, Google, Acer, and ASUS, arguing that
`Microsoft fails to explain in the Petition why “neither Acer nor ASUS (both
`Microsoft OEMs) is named as an RPI in the present IPR.” Discovery
`Motion 1–2, 4, 6–8. Patent Owner does not explain persuasively how
`information related to any relationships between Microsoft, Google, Acer,
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`and ASUS would be “useful” to this specific proceeding. As best we can
`discern from Patent Owner’s argument, Patent Owner contends that the
`additional discovery it seeks might show that Acer and ASUS are real
`parties in interest to the instant proceeding and thus necessary parties. See,
`e.g., id. at 8 (“These interrelationships and action are threshold evidence that
`documents and other things may exist to establish that Acer and ASUS are
`RPIs, e.g., that Acer or ASUS directed/requested that Microsoft mount a
`challenge against the patent.”). But Petitioner’s Joinder Motion, to which
`Patent Owner consents, seeks to join Microsoft to the 386 IPR, in which
`Google, Acer, and ASUS are already current petitioners. Even assuming
`arguendo Patent Owner obtained additional discovery sufficient to show
`Acer and ASUS are necessary to this proceeding, Petitioner’s unopposed
`Joinder Motion would remedy any defect by adding Microsoft into the 386
`IPR with Acer and Asus. Petitioner’s Discovery Motion thus fails to
`establish that the requested discovery as to Acer, ASUS, and Google is
`based on more than a mere possibility of finding something useful, as
`required under the first Garmin factor.
`Finally, we consider Patent Owner’s argument that additional
`discovery is warranted to establish that HTC is a real party in interest to this
`proceeding. Whether a non-identified party is a real party in interest is a
`highly fact-dependent question. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012). “A common consideration is whether
`the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s
`participation in a proceeding.” Id. Significantly, the first Garmin factor
`requires that “[t]he party requesting discovery should already be in
`possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`something useful will be discovered.” Garmin Int’l, Inc., Case No.
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 26, slip op. at 7. Thus, to establish that its discovery
`requests are in the interests of justice, Patent Owner must “provide evidence
`in its possession tending to show beyond speculation that a non-party
`exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a
`proceeding.” CaptionCall, LLC, v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2015-00636, slip op.
`at 5 (Feb. 23, 2015) (Paper 42).
`Here, Patent Owner contends that the instant Petition was filed by
`Microsoft “after expiration of HTC’s 1-year filing window under § 315(b)”
`and, therefore, “HTC was time-barred when Microsoft filed its petition in
`this IPR.” Discovery Mot. 3, 8. Patent Owner further argues that “HTC and
`Microsoft teamed up” to jointly bring a different petition on a different
`patent “using the same law firm that represents Microsoft in the present
`petition.” Id. Patent Owner continues:
`Finally, the fact that Google/Acer/ASUS also pursued challenges
`against 9 of the asserted patents, with no overlap in patents being
`challenged (until Microsoft filed follow-on petitions to try to
`remedy failures in the first round of filings) suggests a level of
`coordination in which Google, HTC, Acer, ASUS, and Microsoft
`divided responsibilities in collectively attacking the asserted
`patents.
`
`
`Id. at 9.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. First, even if
`HTC were a petitioner in this proceeding, the time limit set forth in § 315(b)
`would not prohibit joinder of HTC to the 386 IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`(“The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a
`request for joinder under subsection (c).”). Thus, the issue of whether non-
`party HTC is subject to the time limit set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`not establish that Patent Owner’s requested discovery as to HTC is based on
`more than a mere possibility of finding something useful, as required under
`the first Garmin factor.
`Second, Patent Owner does not explain why its observation that
`Microsoft and HTC previously used the same law firm in a petition on a
`different patent amounts to evidence in its possession tending to show
`beyond speculation that HTC exercised or could have exercised control over
`Microsoft’s participation in this proceeding. See Discovery Mot. 8. To the
`extent Patent Owner contends HTC may be indemnified by Microsoft,
`Patent Owner fails to explain how or why indemnification of HTC by
`Microsoft would result in HTC—not Microsoft—exercising control over this
`proceeding. See id. at 4.
`Third, Patent Owner’s assertion that the instant Petition constitutes
`Microsoft’s “follow-on petition” in an attempt “to try to remedy failures in
`the first round of filings” is unsupported in current record. Id. at 9. Rather
`than seeking to “remedy failures,” the instant Petition “is not only limited to
`the same grounds adopted by the Board in the [386] IPR, but also relies on
`exactly the same analysis, prior art, exhibits, and expert testimony as that
`submitted [in the 386 IPR].” Joinder Mot. 4.
`Accordingly, we determine Patent Owner has failed to show that it is
`already in possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in
`fact something useful will be discovered by its request in the Discovery
`Motion. Patent Owner’s Discovery Motion is, therefore, denied.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`
`V. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of the ʼ913 patent is hereby instituted on the following grounds:
`A. Obviousness of claims 1 and 3–16 over Sakata II; and
`B. Obviousness of claims 1 and 3–16 over Sakata II and Buxton.
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is granted
`and that Microsoft is joined to IPR2017-00386;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the asserted grounds of unpatentability on
`which the proceeding in IPR2017-00386 was instituted are unchanged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding in IPR2017-00386 is
`based on the petition and supporting evidence submitted therein;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding in IPR2017-00386 is
`governed by the previously-issued Scheduling Order (Paper 9);
`FURTHER ORDERED that all petitioners shall file all papers in
`IPR2017-00386 as a single, consolidated filing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Microsoft is bound by any discovery
`agreements between the parties in IPR2017-00386;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, if an oral hearing is requested and
`scheduled in IPR2017-00386, all petitioners will present a consolidated
`argument at the oral hearing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the caption in IPR2017-00386 shall be
`changed to reflect the joinder of Microsoft, as in the attached example;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Discovery Motion is denied; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is terminated under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings will be made in IPR2017-00386.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Christina J. McCullough
`Chad S. Campbell
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`cmccullough@perkinscoie.com
`jcrop@perkinscoie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Justin J. Oliver
`Jason Dorsky
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`philipsipr@fchs.com
`jdorsky@fchs.com
`
`17
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`
`Entered: January 16, 2018
`
`Example Case Caption
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION,
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
`GOOGLE INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and
`MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-003861
`Patent RE44,913
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (“Microsoft”) filed a
`petition in IPR2017-01766, and Microsoft has been joined to the instant
`proceeding.
`
`