UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioners
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,724,622
`Case IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
`(35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DC: 6520405-1
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioners
`v.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,724,622
`Case IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
`(35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DC: 6520405-1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioners
`
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”) and LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”), move for
`
`joinder with the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622, Facebook, Inc.,
`
`WhatsApp Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., IPR2017-01667
`
`(“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 ’622 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 ’622
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`patent in district court against LGE and Huawei. Joinder will estop Huawei and
`
`LGE 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 Huawei and LGE. 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”) are the owners of the ’622
`
`Patent. The Patent Owner asserted the ’622 Patent against Petitioners in 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) and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00991-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 ’622 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 June 22, 2017, Facebook and WhatsApp filed their IPR petition,
`
`IPR2017-01667, against the ’622 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
`
`Huawei and LGE 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, Huawei and LGE will be prejudiced
`A denial of joinder would prejudice Huawei and LGE. Their substantial
`
`interests, as parties against whom the ’622 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, Huawei and LGE have an interest
`
`that the Facebook IPR reaches a final determination to facilitate a timely and cost-
`
`effective end to the controversy between Huawei, LGE and the Patent Owner.
`
`Huawei and LGE 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., IPR2017-01667.3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 50-
`
`0740.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/David A. Garr/
`Lead Counsel and Counsel for Huawei
`David A. Garr (Reg. No. 74,932)
`
`
`
`/Anand K. Sharma/
`Backup Counsel and Counsel for LGE
`Anand K. Sharma, Reg. No. 43,916
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and
`
`42.105(a) by Express Mail of a true and correct copy of this MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW on September 11, 2017, 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. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00994-JRG as
`
`follows:
`
`Paul J. Hayes
`Kevin Gannon
`Aaron S. Jacobs
`CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP
`88 Black Falcon Ave
`Suite 271
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`
`Craig Tadlock
`Texas State Bar No. 00791766
`TADLOCK LAW FIRM PLLC
`2701 Dallas Parkway, Suite 360
`Plano, TX 75093
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David A. Garr/
`David A. Garr Reg. No. 74,932
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
