`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,995,433
`Case IPR No.: IPR2017-02088
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
`(35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioners LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., (LGE) and Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (Huawei) move for joinder
`
`with the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433, Facebook, Inc.,
`
`WhatsApp Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., IPR2017-01428
`
`(“the Facebook IPR”), for which an institution decision is pending. This motion is
`
`timely because it is filed prior to institution of the Facebook IPR. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b). Petitioners understand that the petitioners in the Facebook IPR do not
`
`oppose Petitioners' request for joinder.
`
`Petitioners request institution of the concurrently filed Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review. The Petition is a carbon copy of the original Facebook IPR
`
`petition in all material respects. The concurrently filed Petition and the Facebook
`
`IPR petition challenge the same claims of the ’433 patent on the same grounds
`
`relying on the same prior art and evidence, including the declaration identical in
`
`substance from the same expert.1
`
`Petitioners request that the institution of this Petition be limited solely to the
`
`grounds that will be instituted in the Facebook IPR. Petitioners agree to proceed
`
`
`1 The declaration has been updated only to reflect retention by Petitioners and is
`
`otherwise identical to the declaration submitted in the Facebook IPR.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`solely on the grounds, evidence, and arguments advanced, or that will be advanced,
`
`in the Facebook IPR as instituted. Thus, the Petition warrants institution under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314, and 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) permits Petitioners’ joinder to the
`
`Facebook IPR.
`
`Further, if joined, Petitioners agree to adhere to all applicable deadlines in
`
`the Facebook IPR and coordinate all filings with the Petitioner in the Facebook
`
`IPR (“the Facebook Petitioner”). The Facebook Petitioner will maintain the lead
`
`role in the proceedings so long as it is a party to the proceedings. Petitioners agree
`
`to consolidated filings for all substantive papers in the proceeding. The Facebook
`
`Petitioner and Petitioners will be jointly responsible for the consolidated filings.
`
`Petitioners will not advance any arguments separate from those advanced by the
`
`Facebook Petitioner in the consolidated filings. These limitations will avoid
`
`lengthy and duplicative briefing. Also, Petitioners will not seek additional
`
`depositions or deposition time, and will coordinate deposition questioning and
`
`hearing presentations with the Facebook Petitioner. Petitioners agree to the
`
`foregoing conditions even in the event that other IPRs filed by other, third-party
`
`petitioners are joined with the Facebook IPR.
`
`Joinder will help efficiently resolve the disputes among the parties. By
`
`joinder, a single Board decision may dispose of the issues raised in the Facebook
`
`IPR for all interested parties. Further, the Patent Owner has asserted the ’433
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`patent in district court against LGE and Huawei. Joinder will estop LGE and
`
`Huawei from asserting in district court those issues resolved in a final written
`
`decision in the Facebook IPR, thus narrowing the issues in the district court
`
`actions. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Finally, joinder would not complicate or delay
`
`the Facebook IPR, and would not adversely affect any schedule set in that
`
`proceeding. In sum, joinder would promote efficient adjudication in multiple
`
`forums. On the other hand, if instituted, maintaining the Petitioners’ IPR
`
`proceeding separate from that of the Facebook IPR would entail needless
`
`duplication of effort.
`
`Joinder will not unduly prejudice any party. Because joinder will not add
`
`any new substantive issues, delay the schedule, burden deponents, or increase
`
`needless filings, any additional costs on the Patent Owner would be minimal. On
`
`the other hand, denial of joinder would prejudice LGE and Huawei. Their interests
`
`may not be adequately protected in the Facebook IPR proceedings, particularly if
`
`the Facebook Petitioner settles with the Patent Owner. Petitioners should be
`
`allowed to join in a proceeding affecting a patent asserted against them.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (the “Patent Owner”) is the owner of the ’433
`
`Patent. The Patent Owner asserted the ’433 Patent against Petitioners in Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00991-JRG (E.D.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Tex. Filed Sept. 6, 2016), and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc.
`
`et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00994-JRG (E.D. Tex. Filed Sept. 6, 2016), which have
`
`been consolidated for pretrial purposes with Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00992-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (lead case). In addition,
`
`the Patent Owner asserted the ’433 Patent against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) and
`
`WhatsApp Inc. (“WhatsApp”), among others, in Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00642-JRG (E.D. Tex.). On
`
`May 11, 2017, Facebook and WhatsApp filed their IPR petition, IPR2017-01428,
`
`against the ’433 patent. The Board has not yet decided whether to institute the
`
`Facebook IPR. Petitioners here move for joinder with the Facebook IPR.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`A. Legal Standards and Applicable Rules
`The time limitation set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not apply to a
`
`request for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board has discretion to join a
`
`properly filed IPR petition to an IPR proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b); see also Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385,
`
`Paper 19, at 4-6; Sony Corp. v. Yissum Res. & Dev. Co. of the Hebrew Univ. of
`
`Jerusalem, IPR2013- 00326, Paper 15, at 3-4; Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00109, Paper 15, at 3-4. “The Board will determine whether to grant
`
`joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the particular facts of each
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`case, substantive and procedural issues, and other considerations.” Dell, IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper 19, at 3. The movants bear the burden of proof in establishing
`
`entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). A motion for
`
`joinder should:
`
`(1) set forth the 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.
`
`Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper 19, at 4.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder will not add any new grounds of unpatentability or have
`an impact on the trial schedule.
`
`The Petition is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art that
`
`the Board will consider in deciding whether to institute the Facebook IPR. For
`
`simplicity and efficiency, Petitioners copied the substance of Facebook’s petition
`
`and accompanying declaration. Petitioners do not seek to reintroduce grounds or
`
`claims not in the Facebook IPR and seek only to join the proceeding as instituted.
`
`Petitioners retained the same expert, who has submitted an identical declaration as
`
`in the Facebook IPR. The Patent Owner should not require any discovery beyond
`
`that which it may need in the Facebook IPR—nor should the Board permit any.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition presents no new substantive issues relative to the Facebook IPR and
`
`does not seek to broaden the scope of the Facebook IPR.
`
`For efficiency’s sake, Petitioners will:
`
`1. Adhere to all applicable deadlines in the Facebook IPR;
`
`2. Submit “consolidated” filings with the Facebook Petitioner, as set
`
`forth above in the statement of precise relief requested;
`
`3. Refrain from requesting or reserving any additional depositions or
`
`deposition time;
`
`4. Refrain from requesting or reserving additional oral hearing time; and
`
`5. Assume a second-chair role as long as the Facebook Petitioner
`
`remains in the proceeding.2
`
`In view of these provisions, joinder should not affect the trial schedule.
`
`
`2 These limitations are consistent with previously granted joinder motions. See,
`
`e.g., Enzymotech Ltd. v. Neptune Techs., IPR2014-00556, Paper 19 (July 9, 2014)
`
`(agreeing to procedural concessions, such as “consolidated” responses); Gillette
`
`Co. v. Zond, IPR2014-01016, Paper 13 (Nov. 10, 2014) (same); SAP Am. Inc. v.
`
`Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2014-00306, Paper 13 (May 19, 2014) (same).
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Joinder will promote efficiency by consolidating issues, avoiding
`wasteful duplication, and preventing inconsistency.
`
`Petitioners present identical arguments and supporting evidence as the
`
`Facebook IPR. Joinder will simplify briefing and discovery. Given that the
`
`Facebook IPR and the Petition address the same prior art and grounds for rejection
`
`of the same claims, joining these proceedings allows for joint submissions and
`
`discovery, further streamlining the proceedings. This should promote efficiency
`
`and conserve the Board’s and the parties’ resources. Further, joinder will estop
`
`LGE and Huawei from asserting in district court those issues resolved in a final
`
`written decision in the Facebook IPR, thus narrowing the issues in the district court
`
`actions. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`
`D.
`The Board has previously stated that it is “mindful of a policy preference for
`
`joining a party that does not present new issues.” Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs
`
`& Bioresources, Inc. IPR2014-00556, Paper No. 19 at 6 (July 9, 2014) (citing 157
`
`CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“The Office
`
`anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of right – if an inter partes review is
`
`instituted on the basis of a petition, for example, a party that files an identical
`
`petition will be joined to that proceeding, and thus allowed to file its own briefs
`
`and make its own arguments.”))
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`Here, because Petitioners seek institution solely on the grounds, evidence,
`
`and arguments advanced, or that will be advanced, in the Facebook IPR, institution
`
`is warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and Petitioners’ joinder to the Facebook IPR is
`
`appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). No new grounds of unpatentability are
`
`asserted. As explained above, joinder would not adversely impact the trial
`
`schedule, briefing, or discovery in the Facebook IPR, and the remaining equities
`
`compel joinder.
`
`Petitioners are filing this Petition and joinder motion to ensure that the trial
`
`is completed in the event that the Facebook Petitioner reaches settlement with
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`1. Without joinder, LGE and Huawei will be prejudiced
`A denial of joinder would prejudice LGE and Huawei. Their substantial
`
`interests, as parties against whom the ’433 patent has been asserted in a federal
`
`district court action, may not be adequately protected by the Facebook Petitioner in
`
`the Facebook IPR proceedings. For example, LGE and Huawei have an interest
`
`that the Facebook IPR reaches a final determination to facilitate a timely and cost-
`
`effective end to the controversy between LGE, Huawei, and the Patent Owner.
`
`LGE and Huawei should be allowed to join in a proceeding affecting a patent
`
`asserted against it.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`Joinder will not unduly prejudice any party
`
`2.
`The Petition raises issues already before the Board and long known to the
`
`Patent Owner. Addressing patent validity in this proceeding, well on its way
`
`towards a final determination, serves the parties’ and Board’s interests.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Joinder will not affect the substance, procedure, or scheduling of the
`
`Facebook IPR. Petitioners file this motion under the statutory joinder provisions as
`
`contemplated by the AIA. Joinder will simplify the issues and promote efficiency,
`
`justice, and speed.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 and joinder with Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp
`
`Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., IPR2017-01428.3
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: / Anand K. Sharma/
` Anand K. Sharma, Lead Counsel
` Reg. No. 43,916
` Counsel for LG
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Although no fee is believed to be required, the Commissioner is authorized to
`
`charge any additional fees required for this Motion, to Deposit Account No. 06-
`
`0916.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: / David A. Garr /
` David A. Garr, Lead Counsel
` Reg. No. 74,932
` Counsel for Huawei
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW is being served via
`
`Federal Express on the 11th day of September, 2017, the same day as the filing of
`
`the above-identified document in the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence address of record with the USPTO as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sean Burdick
`Dianoosh Salehi
`Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`Legacy Town Center
`7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380
`Plano Texas 75024
`972-905-9580
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and upon counsel of record for the Patent Owner in the litigations pending before
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas entitled Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`et al. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00991-JRG as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paul J. Hayes
`Kevin Gannon
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02210
`617-456-8000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Anthony Michael Vecchione
`Edward R Nelson, III
`Nelson Bumgardner PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Ft Worth, TX 76107
`817-377-9111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Lauren K. Young/
`Lauren K. Young
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`