`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`NAVICO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
` GARMIN SWITZERLAND GmbH,
` Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 7,268,703 B1
`Issued: September 11, 2007
`Filed: September 18, 2003
` Inventors: Darrin W. Kabel, Steven J. Myers
` Title: METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND DEVICES FOR CARTOGRAPHIC
`ALERTS
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-02051
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b)
`TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2017-00946
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ........................... 1
`II.
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 1
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 3
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely ............................................. 3
`C.
`Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder ............................................... 4
`1.
`Joinder is Appropriate with the FLIR IPR .................................. 4
`2.
`Petitioner Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability .......... 5
`3.
`Joinder Will Not Unduly Burden or Negatively Impact the FLIR
`IPR Trial Schedule ...................................................................... 5
`4.
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery ......................... 7
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Navico, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Motion for Joinder,
`
`together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,268,703 (“the
`
`Navico Petition”) filed contemporaneously herewith. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review
`
`and joinder with the inter partes review in FLIR Systems, Inc. and FLIR Maritime
`
`US, Inc. (f/k/a Raymarine, Inc.) v. Garmin Switzerland GmbH, IPR2017-00946
`
`(“the FLIR IPR”), which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) instituted on
`
`August 10, 2017. Petitioner’s request for joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22
`
`and 42.122(b) as it submitted no later than one month after the August 10, 2017
`
`institution date of the FLIR IPR. The Navico Petition is also narrowly tailored to the
`
`same claims, prior art, and grounds for unpatentability that are the subject of the
`
`FLIR IPR. In addition, Petitioner is willing to streamline discovery and briefing.
`
`Petitioner submits that joinder is appropriate because it will not unduly burden or
`
`prejudice the parties to the FLIR IPR while efficiently resolving the question of the
`
`ʼ703 Patent’s validity in a single proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1. Garmin Switzerland GmbH and Garmin Corp. (collectively “Garmin” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) filed civil actions against Navico, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02706, in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, on October 17, 2016, FLIR Maritime
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S., Inc. (f/k/a Raymarine, Inc.), Case No. 2:16-cv-02806, in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of Kansas, on December 12, 2016, and FLIR Systems, Inc. and FLIR Maritime US,
`
`Inc. (f/k/a Raymarine, Inc.) (collectively “FLIR”), Case No. 3:17-cv-01147, in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the District of Oregon, on July 24, 2017.
`
`2.
`
`On February 17, 2017, FLIR filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2017-00946) requesting cancellation of claims 1-7, 12-23, 25-29, and 41-45 of
`
`the ʼ703 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`On August 10, 2017, the Board instituted FLIR’s petition for inter
`
`partes review on all proposed grounds, finding that a reasonable likelihood existed
`
`that FLIR’s petition for inter partes review would prevail in showing unpatentability
`
`of claims 1-7, 12-23, 25-29, and 41-45 of the ʼ703 Patent. See IPR2017-00946,
`
`Decision Instituting IPR Review, Paper No. 7 at 33-34.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Board has the authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a properly filed
`
`inter partes review petition to an instituted inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). A motion for joinder must be filed within one month of the Board
`
`instituting an original inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In deciding whether
`
`to exercise its discretion and permit joinder, the Board considers factors, including:
`
`(1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) whether the new petition presents any
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`new grounds of unpatentability; (3) what impact, if any, joinder would have on the
`
`trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) how briefing and discovery may be
`
`simplified. See Kyocera Corporation v. Softview LLC, IPR2013- 00004, Paper 15 at 4
`
`(April 24, 2013).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely because it is filed within one month of the
`
`August 10, 2017 institution decision of the FLIR IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Further, the one-year bar set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) does not apply to the
`
`Navico Petition because this Motion for Joinder is filed concurrently with the
`
`Navico Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`C. Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder
`
`here. Specifically, the Navico Petition does not present any new grounds of
`
`unpatentability; rather it is substantively identical to the FLIR Petition. Further,
`
`joinder will have minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues are
`
`substantively identical and Petitioner will accept an “understudy” role. See IPR2015-
`
`01353, Decision Instituting IPR Review, Motion for Joinder, paper 11 at 6; (granting
`
`IPR where petitioners requested an “understudy” role); see also IPR2015-01353,
`
`Motion for Joinder, paper 4 at 5-7. Lastly, the briefing and discovery will be
`
`simplified by resolving all issues in a single proceeding.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, joinder is appropriate here. See IPR2015-01353, Decision
`
`Instituting IPR Review, Motion for Joinder, paper 11 at 5-6 (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 IPR2015-01353, Motion for Joinder, paper 4 at 4- 5.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate with the FLIR IPR
`
`1.
`Joinder with the FLIR IPR is appropriate because the Navico Petition involves
`
`the same patent, challenges the same claims, relies on the same expert declaration, and
`
`is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art submitted in the FLIR
`
`Petition. Id. The Navico Petition is substantively identical to the FLIR Petition,
`
`containing only minor differences related to formalities of a different party filing the
`
`petition, and noting Petitioner Navico’s current agreement with the Board on claim
`
`construction.
`
`Other than these mere differences related to formalities, there are no changes to
`
`the facts, citations, evidence, or arguments presented in the FLIR Petition.
`
`Because these proceedings are substantively identical, good cause exists for joining
`
`this proceeding with the FLIR IPR so that the Board can efficiently resolve all
`
`grounds in both the Navico and FLIR Petitions in a single proceeding. Id.
`
`Petitioner Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`2.
`The Navico Petition does not present any new grounds of unpatentability. The
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Navico Petition is substantively identical to the FLIR Petition. The Navico Petition
`
`presents the unpatentability of the same claims of the same patent in the same way as
`
`the FLIR Petition.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Unduly Burden or Negatively Impact the
`FLIR IPR Trial Schedule
`
`Because the Navico Petition is substantively identical to the FLIR Petition,
`
`with the same grounds rejecting the same claims as instituted by the Board, there are
`
`no new issues for Patent Owner to address. Due to the same issues being presented in
`
`the FLIR Petition, Patent Owner will not be required to present any additional
`
`responses or arguments. See IPR2015-01353, Decision Instituting IPR, Motion for
`
`Joinder, paper 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].”); see also IPR2015- 01353, Motion for
`
`Joinder, paper 4 at 5-7. Without any new issues present, there is no reason to delay or
`
`alter the trial schedule already present in the FLIR IPR, and Petitioner explicitly
`
`consents to the existing trial schedule. Further, the Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response already filed in the FLIR IPR addresses any and all issues in the Navico
`
`Petition, since the issues are substantively identical to the issues of the FLIR Petition.
`
`See IPR2017-00946, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, paper 6.
`
`The Patent Owner Response will also not be negatively impacted because the
`
`issues presented in the FLIR Petition are identical to the issues presented in the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Navico Petition. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional analysis
`
`or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to the FLIR Petition.
`
`Id. Also, because the Navico Petition relies on the same expert and a substantively
`
`identical declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the proposed joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`Joinder of this proceeding with the FLIR IPR does not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule in any meaningful way. Further, even if a
`
`small adjustment of the trial schedule was necessary, this is already provided for in
`
`the rules and is a routine undertaking by parties in IPR proceedings. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(c). Thus, a slight adjustment in the trial schedule, should one be needed, is
`
`not enough of a reason to deny joining the present Navico Petition with the FLIR
`
`IPR.
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`
`4.
`The FLIR Petition and Navico Petition present substantively identical
`
`grounds of rejection, including the same art combinations against the same claims.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, as described
`
`by the Board:
`
`“(a) all filings by [Petitioner]
`joined proceeding be
`the
`in
`consolidated with [the filings of the petitioner in the FLIR IPR],
`unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve [the
`petitioner in the FLIR IPR]; (b) [Petitioner] shall not be permitted to
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`raise any new grounds not already instituted by the Board in the
`[FLIR IPR], or introduce any argument or discovery not already
`introduced by [the petitioner in the FLIR IPR]; (c) [Petitioner]
`shall be bound by any agreement between [Patent Owner] and [the
`petitioner
`in
`the FLIR
`IPR] concerning discovery and/or
`depositions; and (d) [Petitioner] at deposition shall not receive any
`direct, cross examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for
`[the petitioner in the FLIR IPR] alone under either37 C.F.R. § 42.53
`or any agreement between [Patent Owner] and [the petitioner in the
`FLIR IPR].”
`
`
`
`See IPR2014-00550, paper 38 at 5 (Apr. 10, 2015) (emphasis in original).
`
`Petitioner Navico will assume the primary role only if FLIR ceases to participate in
`
`the FLIR IPR. Petitioner Navico has conferred with counsel for Petitioner FLIR, and
`
`Petitioner FLIR takes no position as to Petitioner Navico joining in IPR2017-00946
`
`in an “understudy” role.
`
`By Petitioner accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner and Petitioner
`
`Navico can comply with the current trial schedule and avoid 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 IPR2015-01353,
`
`Decision Instituting IPR, paper 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”
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`where petitioners agreed to an “understudy” role.); see also IPR2015-01353, Motion
`
`
`
`for Joinder, paper 4 at 6-7.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the factors discussed above, Petitioner Navico respectfully requests
`
`that the Board grant the Navico Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,268,703 and then grant joinder with the FLIR Systems, Inc. and FLIR Maritime
`
`US, Inc. (f/k/a Raymarine, Inc.) v. Garmin Switzerland GmbH, IPR2017-00946
`
`proceeding.
`
`Dated:
`
`September 7, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`/s/ Heath J. Briggs
`Heath J. Briggs (Reg. No. 54,919)
`William Fischer (Reg. No. 63,255)
`1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: (303) 572-6500
`Fax: (303) 572-6540
`Navico-IPRs@gtlaw.com
`
`Joshua L. Raskin (Reg. No. 40,135)
`MetLife Building
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 801-6930
`Navico-IPRs@gtlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Navico, Inc.
`
`8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the Motion for
`
`Joinder has been served on the Patent Owner via Priority Mail Express or by
`
`means at least as fast and reliable as Priority Mail Express on the below date, at the
`
`following address:
`
`Garmin International, Inc.
`Attn: Legal-IP
`1200 East 151st Street
`Olathe, KS 66062
`(913) 397-8200
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 7, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Heath J. Briggs
`Heath J. Briggs
`Registration No. 54,919
`1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
`Denver, CO 80202
`Phone: (303) 572-6500
`Fax: (303) 572-6540
`Navico-IPRs@gtlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`9
`
`