`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-01766
`Patent No. RE44,913
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C § 315(c) AND
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively, “Microsoft”)
`
`I.
`
`
`submits concurrently a petition for inter partes review (the “Microsoft Petition”) of
`
`claims 1 and 3-16 of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 (“the ’913 patent”), which is
`
`assigned to Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (“Patent Owner”). Microsoft
`
`respectfully requests that this proceeding be joined with the pending inter partes
`
`review initiated by Google Inc. (“Google”) under PTAB Case No. IPR2017-00386
`
`(hereinafter “Google IPR”). The Microsoft Petition is narrowly tailored to the
`
`identical grounds of unpatentability that are subject of the Google IPR, and is
`
`essentially a copy of the petition in the Google IPR with respect to the adopted
`
`grounds, including the same analyses, prior art references, exhibits, and expert
`
`testimony as in the Google IPR. The Microsoft Petition raises no issues beyond
`
`the issues raised in the instituted grounds of the Google IPR.
`
`
`
`Microsoft’s request for joinder is timely because this request is being filed
`
`within one month of the institution of the Google IPR under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`and meets all formal requirements for the requested joinder. Microsoft will also do
`
`its part to minimize any effects or delays in the joined proceeding going forward to
`
`ensure timely and efficient conduct of the joined proceeding.
`
`
`
`In addition, joinder is appropriate because it will efficiently resolve the
`
`validity of the challenged claims of the ’913 patent in a single PTAB proceeding.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`The requested joinder serves the intent of the AIA by making the PTAB
`
`proceedings a cost-effective alternative to litigation. The requested joinder does
`
`not prejudice the parties to the Google IPR. In similar circumstances, the Board has
`
`routinely granted joinder, and it should grant joinder here as well.
`
`
`
`Microsoft is hereby filing this motion pursuant to the joinder provisions
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b) to move that:
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The trial requested in the Microsoft Petition be instituted; and
`
`(2) The new Microsoft IPR be joined with the instituted Google IPR trial.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`Several U.S. Patents, including U.S. Patent No. RE44,913, are asserted
`
`against Microsoft in various on-going patent lawsuits filed by Patent Owner in the
`
`District of Delaware. Microsoft is also pursuing inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,522,695. The ’913 patent is asserted in the following cases pending in the
`
`District of Delaware (“the Delaware Actions”): (1) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al.
`
`v. Acer Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01170-GMS (D. Del.); (2) Koninklijke Philips
`
`N.V. et al. v. Asustek Computer Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01125-GMS (D.
`
`Del.); (3) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Double Power Technology, Inc. et al.,
`
`Case No. 1:15-cv-01130-GMS (D. Del.); (4) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. HTC
`
`Corp. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01126-GMS (D. Del.); (5) Koninklijke Philips N.V.
`
`et al. v. Southern Telecom, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01128-GMS (D. Del.);
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`(6) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Visual Land, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01127-
`
`gms (D. Del.); (7) Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Yifang USA, Inc., Case No.
`
`1:15-cv-01131-GMS (D. Del.).
`
`
`
`On December 5, 2016, Google Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging claims
`
`1 and 3-16 of the ’913 Patent, assigned Case No. IPR2017-00386, and the Board
`
`determined that trial should be instituted on June 12, 2017.
`
`
`
`This Petition proposes the same grounds of rejection that were proposed in
`
`the Google IPR and that were instituted by the Board in the Google IPR. In fact,
`
`the Petition is entirely similar to Google’s petition with respect to the adopted
`
`grounds, including the same analysis, prior art, exhibits, and expert testimony.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Legal Standard
`
`
`
`The Board has authority to join as a party any person who properly files a
`
`petition for inter partes review to an instituted inter partes review. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c). A motion for joinder must be filed within one month of institution of any
`
`inter partes review for which joinder is requested. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In
`
`deciding whether to grant a motion for joinder, the Board considers several factors
`
`including: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) whether the party to be
`
`joined has presented any new grounds of unpatentability; (3) what impact, if any,
`
`joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) how
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`briefing and discovery may be simplified. See, e.g., Hyundai Motor Co. v. Am.
`
`Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2014-01543, Paper No. 11 at 3 (Oct. 24, 2014);
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion, IPR2014-00898, Paper 15 at 4 (Aug. 13, 2014)
`
`(quoting Kyocera Corporation v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4
`
`(April 24, 2013)). Each of these factors weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`B. Microsoft’s Motion for Joinder Is Timely
`This motion is timely because it is filed within one month of June 12, 2017,
`
`the date the Google IPR was instituted. See IPR2017-00386 at Paper 8.
`
`C. The Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder
`
`
`
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`Granting joinder will not enlarge the scope of the Google IPR because Microsoft
`
`presents no new grounds of unpatentability, and joinder will not negatively impact
`
`the Google IPR schedule. Conversely, a decision denying joinder could severely
`
`prejudice Microsoft. Joinder is appropriate and warranted.
`
`1.
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`
`
`Joinder with the Google IPR is appropriate. Microsoft’s Petition is not only
`
`limited to the same grounds adopted by the Board in the Google IPR, but also
`
`relies on exactly the same analysis, prior art, exhibits, and expert testimony as that
`
`submitted by Google. Microsoft’s Petition also does not include any grounds or
`
`raise any unpatentability issues that were not adopted by the Board.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`is also appropriate because
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`the efficient
`
`it will promote
`
`
`
`Joinder
`
`determination of validity of the challenged claims of the ’913 patent. A final
`
`written decision on the validity of the ’913 patent has the potential to minimize
`
`issues in the underlying litigations, and potentially resolve the litigations altogether
`
`with respect to the ’913 patent. Both the Google IPR petition and Microsoft’s
`
`Petition arise out of the Delaware Actions, where Patent Owner has sued both
`
`Google and Microsoft’s customers. The joinder would promote efficiency in
`
`resolving the invalidity issues in the ’913 patent at both the Board and the court.
`
`Absent joinder, if Patent Owner and Google settle, Microsoft may be forced to start
`
`over in district court with the same arguments on which Google has already shown
`
`it is reasonably likely to prevail, thereby wasting judicial resources. Joinder is
`
`appropriate to avoid duplicative invalidity efforts and promote judicial efficiency.
`
`
`
`Additionally, although granting joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or
`
`Google, Microsoft could be prejudiced if joinder is denied. As mentioned above,
`
`Microsoft’s Petition does not raise any issues that are not already before the Board.
`
`Therefore, joinder should not affect the timing of the Google IPR or the content of
`
`Patent Owner’s response. Also, there should be no additional cost to Patent Owner
`
`or Google given the overlap in the petitions. On the other hand, Microsoft would
`
`be potentially prejudiced if joinder is denied. For example, absent joinder, Patent
`
`Owner may attempt to use aspects of the Google IPR against Microsoft in district
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`court, even though Microsoft was not able to participate in the Google IPR to
`
`protect its interests.
`
`2. Microsoft’s Petition Presents No New Grounds
`
`
`
`The Petition does not present any new ground of unpatentability. As
`
`mentioned above, the Petition presents only the grounds already adopted by the
`
`Board in the Google IPR, and is based on the same analyses and same expert
`
`testimony submitted by Google.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the Google IPR
`Schedule
`
`
`
`Because the Petition incorporates the grounds from Google’s petition that
`
`the Board adopted—including the same analysis, prior art, exhibits, and expert
`
`testimony filed by Google—joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete
`
`its review in a timely manner, as it will not introduce any additional arguments,
`
`briefing, or need for discovery. In such circumstances, the Board has routinely
`
`granted joinder. See, e.g., Hyundai, IPR2014-01543, Paper No. 11 at 2-4 (granting
`
`joinder where proposed grounds are identical, the same expert declaration is used,
`
`and joinder would not affect the pending schedule or increase the complexity of the
`
`instituted IPR); Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00495, Paper No. 13 at 5-9 (Sep. 16, 2013) (granting joinder where the petition
`
`“asserts the same grounds of unpatentablility” as the instituted case, “no new issues
`
`beyond those already before the Board in the existing proceeding” were raised, and
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`“the procedural impact of joinder on the existing proceeding would be minimal.”);
`
`Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17, at 6-10 (Jul.
`
`29, 2013) (granting joinder where the petition “raises no new issues beyond what is
`
`already before the Board in the existing proceeding.”).
`
`
`
`Microsoft will do its part to minimize any extension of deadlines and will do
`
`everything within its power to facilitate completion of the requested joined
`
`proceeding within one year under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(c).
`
`Discovery and Briefing Can Be Simplified
`
`4.
`Because the grounds in the Microsoft Petition are identical to those instituted
`
`
`
`for the Google IPR petition, the Board may adopt procedures similar to those
`
`adopted in Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385 and
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. SoftView LLC, IPR2013-00256. In those cases, the
`
`Board ordered the petitioners to file consolidated filings, for which the first
`
`petitioner was responsible, and allowed the new petitioner to file seven additional
`
`pages with corresponding additional responsive pages allowed to the Patent
`
`Owner. Dell, Paper 17 at 8; Motorola Mobility, Paper 10 at 8-9. Such a procedure
`
`would minimize any complication or delay caused by joinder, as the Board
`
`recognized in those cases. Also, and again as in Dell and Motorola Mobility, the
`
`petitioners in this proceeding can work together to manage the questioning at
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`depositions and presentations at the hearing to avoid redundancy. Dell, Paper 17 at
`
`9; Motorola Mobility, Paper 10 at 9-10.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Microsoft respectfully requests that this motion
`
`be granted and that this proceeding be joined with the Google IPR.
`
`
`
`DATED: July 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`/Christina J. McCullough/
`Lead Counsel
`Christina J. McCullough, Reg. No. 58,720
`CMcCullough@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Chad S. Campbell, Pro Hac Vice
`CSCampbell@perkinscoie.com
`Jared Crop, Reg. No. 62,459
`JCrop@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
`
`Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation and
`Microsoft Mobile Inc.
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing MOTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR JOINDER has been served in its entirety this 12th day of July, 2017 by
`
`FedEx® on Patent Owner at the correspondence address for the attorney of record
`
`for the '913 Patent shown in USPTO PAIR:
`
`PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
`465 Columbus Avenue, Suite 340
`Valhalla NY 10595
`
`A courtesy copy has been served via electronic mail on the attorneys of
`
`record for the Patent Owner in the concurrent litigation matter:
`
`Michael P. Kelly- mkelly@mccarter.com
`Daniel M. Silver - dsilver@mccarter.com
`Benjamin A. Smyth - bsmyth@mccarter.com
`Michael P. Sandonato - msandonato@fchs.com
`John D. Carlin - jcarlin@fchs.com
`Daniel A. Apgar - dapgar@fchs.com
`Jonathan M. Sharret - jsharret@fchs.com
`Christopher M. Gerson - cgerson@fchs.com
`Jaime F Cardenas-Naviajcardenas - navia@fchs.com
`Robert S. Pickens - rpickens@fchs.com
`
`In addition, the undersigned certifies that a true copy of the petition and
`
`supporting materials have been served via electronic mail on Patent Owner via
`
`email to its legal counsel:
`
`PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
`info.ips@philips.com
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`Motion for Joinder with IPR2017-00386
`
`/Christina J. McCullough/
`Lead Counsel
`Christina J. McCullough, Reg. No. 58,720
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Chad S. Campbell, Pro Hac Vice
`Jared Crop, Reg. No. 62,459
`
`Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation and
`Microsoft Mobile Inc.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`