UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.1
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`PATENT 7,092,671
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The owner of this patent is Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.1
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`PATENT 7,092,671
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The owner of this patent is Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`PETITIONER FAILED TO NAME AND REFUSES TO
`NAME ALL REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ........................................ 1
`A. Burden of proof lies with Petitioner who has no benefit of
`a presumption ...................................................................................... 2
`B. Federal Circuit precedential analysis in RPX applies here ................. 4
`1.
`Apple
` each has a preexisting,
`established relationship with Unified ................................... 4
`Apple
` are each clear beneficiaries
`of the Petition ....................................................................... 6
`Unified acted as a proxy for its clients Apple
`
` ............................................................................. 13
`Unified has a history of acting as a proxy .......................... 15
`Unified has substantial legal relationships with
`Apple
` ............................................................ 17
`The
` language provides no
`magical safe harbor ............................................................ 19
`THE ’671 PATENT ................................................................................ 20
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................... 22
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE OBVIOSNESS OF ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM ........................................................................ 22
`A. Claim construction of the “controlling” limitations ......................... 23
`B. No Proof of obviousness of the “controlling” claim
`language ............................................................................................ 28
`1.
`Yun’s “electronic pocketbook” fails to disclose,
`
`6.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`and teaches away from, the “controlling”
`limitations ........................................................................... 29
`Harris’ disclosure of a “PDA” transmitting a
`phone number does not render obvious the
`“controlling” claim language ............................................. 34
`Dykes does not cure the deficiencies of either
`Yun or Harris concerning the “controlling” claim
`language .............................................................................. 37
`THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`IS THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL ..................................... 41
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 42
`
`3.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`
`
`
`US. Patent 7,092,671
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Screenshot of the home page for Unified Patents, Inc. for the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`date, April 13, 2013, as retrieved from the Internet Archive’s
`
`
`
`
`
`Wayback Machine (WBM), availabie at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://web.arc-hive.org/web/20l30413073000/http://mvw.
`
`
`
`
`unifiedpatentscom:80/solution/unified_patents.html.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`An article by Marta Belcher and John Casey entitled Hacking
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Patent System: A Guide to Alternative Patent Licensing for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Innovators. Juelsgaard Intellectual Property & Innovation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Clinic, Stanford Law School (2014), as archived by the Internet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Archive’s Wayback Machine (WBM), available at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://web.archiveorg/web/20140905000728fhttp://unifiedpate
`
`
`
`
`nts . com: 80/wp—c ontent/uploads/2014/06/hacking_the_patent_sy
`
`
`stempdf.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Screenshot of Unified Patents“ public webpage entitled Benefits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for Large Company Members, as archived by the WBM,
`
`
`available at
`
`
`
`https://web.archiveorg/web/20130907064849/http://www.unifie
`
`
`
`
`dpatents.com:80/benefits/large_companieshtml.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Screenshot of Unified Patents” public webpage entitled
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Compare Unified Patents to Other Options, as archived by the
`
`
`
`WBM, available at
`
`
`
`
`
`https://web.archivecrg/web/20140606010956fhttp://unifiedpate
`
`nts.com:80/.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A collection of documents produced and Bates Labeled by
`
`
`
`Petitioner Unified Patents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Brett A. Mangrum
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2002
`
`
`2003
`
`
`2004
`
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (the “Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this
`Response to Petition IPR2018-00199 for Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or “Petition”)
`of United States Patent No. 7,092,671 (“the ’671 patent” or “EX1001”) filed by
`Unified Patents (“Unified” or “Petitioner”). The instant Petition is procedurally and
`substantively defective for at least the reasons set forth herein.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER FAILED TO NAME AND REFUSES TO NAME ALL
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`The Petition should be denied as procedurally deficient because Unified, a
`non-practicing entity, failed to name (and has refused to name) all privies and real
`parties in interest. Since its formation in 2012, Unified has received substantial funds
`from its subscribing clients to mount inter partes review (“IPR”) challenges in
`instances where those clients have been sued for patent infringement. This
`questionable business model is intended to “allow members to benefit from inter
`partes review of dubious patents without becoming the ‘real parties-in-interest’ in
`the review.”1 Hiding behind their proxy Unified, these fee-paying clients can then
`seek to avoid the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315, in contravention of the
`express intent of Congress.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` EX2005, Marta Belcher and John Casey, Hacking the Patent System: A Guide to
`Alternative Patent Licensing for Innovators, Juelsgaard Intellectual Property &
`Innovation Clinic, Stanford Law School (2014), as archived by the WBM,
`available at https://web.archive.org/web/20140905000728/http://unifiedpatents
`.com:80/wp−content/uploads/2014/06/hacking_the_patent_system.pdf.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`The nature of Unified as an entity, and its contractual relationships with its
`clients Apple Inc. (“Apple”)
`
`, reveal that (1) Apple
` each should have been named as a
`real party in interest and (2) Unified acted as proxy for Apple
` in filing
`the instant Petition. See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp. (“RPX”),
`897 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Determining whether a non-party is a ‘real
`party in interest’ demands a flexible approach that takes into account both equitable
`and practical considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the non-party
`is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the
`petitioner.”).
`
`A. Burden of proof lies with Petitioner who has no benefit of a
`presumption
`Parties filing an IPR petition must identify all the privies and real parties in
`interest. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2);2 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). Citing § 312(a)(2), the Board
`has placed the burden of identifying all privies and real parties in interest on the
`petitioner.3 Among other purposes, this requirement assists “members of the Board
`
`
`
` 2
`
` While Section 312(a)(2) is akin to a pleading requirement that, under certain
`circumstances, may be corrected, the Petitioner here has refused to do so. Unified’s
`refusal to correct this defect taints the Petition as failing to comply with the statute.
`Furthermore, Unified should not be allowed to lie behind the log and wait until it
`can make a best guess as to the expected outcome here, much less wait until after a
`final decision has been reached.
`3 See, e.g., Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., No. IPR2013-
`00453, slip op. at 6–8 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015), Paper No. 88 (“[T]he burden remains
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`in identifying potential conflicts” and assures “proper application of the statutory
`estoppel provisions.” Trial Practice Guide, 77 F.R. 48759 (Aug. 14, 2012). The latter
`reason “seeks to protect patent owners from harassment via successive petitions by
`the same or related parties, to prevent parties from having a ‘second bite at the
`apple,’ and to protect the integrity of both the USPTO and Federal Courts by assuring
`that all issues are promptly raised and vetted.” Id. (emphasis added).
`The Federal Circuit recently held that there is no presumption that an IPR
`petitioner identified all real parties in interest—especially a presumption that would
`disfavor the party that likely has inferior access to potential sources of proof. Worlds
`Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., No. 2017-1481, __ F.3d. __, 2018 WL 4262564, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
`Sept. 7, 2018). The Federal Circuit further disagreed with the Board’s practice of
`creating a presumption by its acceptance of a petitioner’s initial identification of the
`real parties in interest that shifts the burden of production to the patent owner. Id.
`The Federal Circuit did agree, however, that in order to put the issue into dispute “a
`patent owner must produce some evidence that tends to show that a particular third
`party should be named a real party in interest.” Id. (emphasis original).
`Patent Owner clearly offers in this Response more than enough evidence to
`sufficiently put this issue into dispute; and while Unified has the burden of proof,
`the record evidence is sufficient to show that, at a minimum, Apple
`
`
`
`
`with the petitioner to establish that it has complied with the statutory requirement to
`identify all the real parties in interest.” (emphasis added)); see also RPX, 897 F.3d
`at 1351 (citing the same).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`each should have been named as a real party in interest.
`
`B.
`Federal Circuit precedential analysis in RPX applies here
`The Federal Circuit recently provided precedential instruction in RPX on the
`“expansive” meanings of “real party in interest” and “privy,” as used in the AIA
`statutes. 897 F.3d at 1351. The Court held the inquiry “takes into account both
`equitable and practical considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the
`non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with
`the petitioner.” Id.; see also id. at 1353 (“The point is . . . to probe the extent to which
`Salesforce—as RPX’s client—has an interest in and will benefit from RPX's
`actions.”). The present facts are sufficiently analogous to those emphasized by the
`Court in addressing this inquiry to reach the same conclusion here.
`
`1. Apple
` each has a preexisting, established
`relationship with Unified
` each “has a preexisting, established
`It is undisputed that Apple
`relationship with the petitioner” Unified. RPX, 897 F.3d at 1351. Unified and Apple
`entered into a membership agreement as early as
`. See EX2005 at UP-
`02‒UP-19.5 The record evidence further reveals Unified and Apple
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
` Uniloc’s Exhibit 2005 (“EX2005”) is a collection of documents produced and
`Bates labeled by Unified in this matter. Petitioner alleges that these documents
`contain its confidential information. No protective order has been filed in this matter.
`Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Brett Mangrum, signed only an acknowledgement of
`the PTAB’s default protective order. Brett Mangrum is the only counsel of record to
`have done so; and he has fully complied with the default protective order terms.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`
`US. Patent 7.092.671
`
`——- Id- at UP-zo—
`
`UP-35.
`
`
`
`-. Id. at UP-49—UP—50.
`
`The following pending proceedings concern the ’671 patent:
`
`
`
`Case Caption
`
`Case
`Number
`
`Forum
`
`Case Filed
`
`EDTX
`
`May 26. 2017
`
`EDTX
`
`Aug. 1. 2017
`
`Uni/0c USA, Inc. er a]. v.
`Apple Inc.
`Uni/0c USA, Inc. et a]. v.
`Samszm
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review by Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`IPR2018—
`00282
`
`PTAB
`
`December 6.
`2017
`
`December 11.
`PTAB
`IPR2018-
`Petition for Inter Partes
`
`
`Review by Apple Inc. 2017 00199
`
`However, on September 11. 2018. Petitioner’s counsel waived the alleged
`confidentiality of all Petitioner’s produced documents by twice voluntarily sending
`the entire production (77 pages in total) not only to Brett Mangrum, but also to those
`who have not signed an acknowledgment of the default protective order, including
`in-house counsel for Uniloc and counsel who is not of record. Notably. the default
`protective order has no claw-back provision; and. in any event, Petitioner has made
`no attempt to claw back its September 11 productions. While it is Patent Owner’s
`position that Unified has waived confidentiality. Patent Owner presently files
`EX2005 under seal because the Board has not yet had the opportunity to address the
`waiver issue.
`
`5—
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`As shown in the table above, Uniloc first asserted the ’671 patent against
`Apple in a lawsuit filed May 26, 2017. See, e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple, Inc.
`2:17-cv-00457 (filed in TXED). On December 6, 2017, Apple filed an inter partes
`review petition challenging the ’671 patent. Within days of that filing, Unified filed
`the instant inter partes review Petition (IPR2018-00199) against the ’671 patent,
`asserting the same primary references, in the same order, and in presenting virtually
`identical redundant arguments.
`As was the case in RPX, these undisputed facts irrefutably confirm that Apple
` each has “a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner”
`that predates and continued through the filing of the instant Petition.
`
`2. Apple
` are each clear beneficiaries of the Petition
`
`The record evidence further reveals that, not only did Apple
`each have a preexisting, established relationship with Unified, each non-party is “a
`clear beneficiary” of the instant Petition and “has an interest in and will benefit from
`[Unified’s] actions.” RPX, 897 F.3d at 1351; 1353.
`In RPX, the Federal Circuit identified certain factors as being relevant to the
`analysis of whether a non-party is a clear beneficiary. The evidence revealed that
`RPX, unlike a traditional trade association, is a for-profit company whose clients
`pay for its portfolio of patent risk solutions. Id. Those solutions help paying members
`mitigate the risk of what RPX refers to as non-practicing-entity or “NPE” lawsuits.
`Id. The evidence showed that RPX strategized to transform the patent market by its
`facilitation of challenges to patent validity, one intent of which is to reduce expenses
`for RPX’s clients. Id. The Court repeatedly emphasized (in both the majority and
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`concurring opinions) the fact that RPX has advertised that its “interests are 100%
`aligned with those of [its] clients.” See, e.g., id. at 1340, 43, 57, 62, and 64.
`Those factors are equally applicable here. Unified is a for-profit company
`whose clients pay annual subscription fees to join “Micro-Pools” or “Zones” that
`each protect a respective technology area. The advertised protection includes, for
`example, reducing the so-called “risk and cost of NPE litigation” by monitoring such
`litigation activity against subscribing clients and challenging before the USPTO the
`validity of those patents asserted in the protected technology areas. See, e.g.,
`EX2001−EX2006.
`Further, in promoting its own services via its public-facing website, Unified
`described its “collaborative deterrence approach” (in part) as follows: “[b]ecause
`Unified Patents offers its Micro-Pool solution on a technology-by-technology basis,
`companies can subscribe to and pay for only those Micro-Pools they need. This
`structure provides complete alignment between Unified Patents and its member
`companies. Companies can be confident that their subscription fees are exclusively
`used to reduce the risk of NPEs targeting their key technologies.”5,6
`
`
`
` 5
`
` EX2001 (emphasis added), Screenshot of Unified’s public webpage entitled
`Unified Patents’ Collaborative Deterrence Approach, as archived by the Internet
`Archive’s Wayback Machine (WBM), available at https://web.archive.org/web/
`20130413073000/http://www.unifiedpatents.com:80/solution/unified_patents.html;
`see also EX2006.
`6 Unified considers Uniloc a non-practicing entity (“NPE”). See, e.g., EX2005 at
`UP-44; see also RPX, 897 F.3d at 1353 (finding it relevant to the analysis that “RPX
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`In addition, in advertising its services to large companies in particular, such
`as Apple
`, Unified again claimed to have “complete business alignment
`between Unified patents and its Micro-Pool members.”7 As noted above, both the
`majority and concurring opinions in RPX repeatedly emphasized the fact that RPX
`similarly advertised its “interests are 100% aligned with those of [its] clients.” See,
`e.g., RPX, 897 F.3d at 1340, 43, 57, 62, and 64.
`Unified also prominently featured on its website8 an article entitled “Hacking
`the Patent System: Alternative Patent Licensing for Innovators,” which further
`establishes that Unified and RPX provided comparable services to subscribing
`clients.9 Among other similarities, the article identifies Unified and RPX as both as
`providing the service of “challeng[ing] patents in inter partes review.” EX2002 at
`
`
`
`considered AIT a non-practicing entity.”).
`7 EX2003 (emphasis added), Screenshot of Unified’s public webpage entitled
`Benefits for Large Company Members, as archived by the WBM, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20130907064849/http://www.unifiedpatents.com:80/b
`enefits/large_companies.html (emphasis added); see also EX2006.
`8 See, e.g., EX2004, Screenshot of Unified’s public webpage entitled Compare
`Unified Patents to Other Options, as archived by the WBM, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140606010956/http://unifiedpatents.com:80/;
`see
`also EX2006.
`9 See EX2002, which is an article by Marta Belcher and John Casey entitled Hacking
`the Patent System: A Guide to Alternative Patent Licensing for Innovators.
`Juelsgaard Intellectual Property & Innovation Clinic, Stanford Law School (2014),
`as archived by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine (WBM), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140905000728/http://unifiedpatents.com:80/wp−co
`ntent/uploads/2014/06/hacking_the_patent_system.pdf; see also EX2006.
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`16. The article also identifies one of the so-called “pros” of Unified’s business model
`is that “it should allow members to benefit from inter partes review of dubious
`patents without becoming the ‘real parties-in-interest’ in the review.” EX2002 at 5
`(underlining added).
`Thus, as was the case in RPX, the record evidence reveals that “a key reason
`clients pay [Unified] is to benefit from this practice [of filing IPR petitions] in the
`event they are sued by [what Unified considers to be] an NPE”—i.e., precisely what
`happened here. RPX, 897 F.3d at 1351‒52. The implication that Apple
`
`both are beneficiaries of the present Petition becomes even stronger when one
`considers the surrounding circumstances here and the discovery Unified produced
`in this trial.10
`There is strong circumstantial evidence here that Unified and at least Apple
`)11 collaborated and shared work product with each other prior
`(if not
`to those parties filing their respective IPR petitions in IPR2018-00199 and IPR2018-
`00282, respectively. The fact that the petitions were filed within days of each other
`is itself suspicious. This suspicion of collaboration is compounded, however, when
`one considers the astonishing amount of overlapping content of the petitions. Both
`petitions first present obviousness challenges against all claims of the ’671 patent
`
`
`
`10 See n.4, supra.
`11 See n.12, infra.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`
`US. Patent 7,092,671
`
`based primarily on US. Patent 6,084,949 (“Yun”).l2 Both petitions then opt to
`
`present redundant challenges against all claims based primarily on US. Patent
`
`6,738,643 (“Harris”).
`
`The thought that Unified and Apple independently came up with Virtually
`
`identical strategies asserting the same primary references in the same order—without
`
`any collaboration—defies probability. Moreover, there can be no question that at
`
`least Apple “desire[d] review of the [’671] patent” and derives benefit from the
`
`instant Petition, given that Apple advances very similar (if not identical) arguments
`
`in its own petition. See RPX, 897 F.3d at 1351; see also id. at 1355 (finding it
`
`significant that the “the very challenges to validity included in the [RPX] IPR
`
`petitions were challenges Salesforce would like to have made”).
`
`Any communication between Unified and Apple that would at least suggest
`
`collaboration before or after the petition filing date should have been produced
`
`automatically pursuant to Rule 52.51(b)(iii), which provides that “a party must serve
`
`relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during
`
`the proceeding concurrent with the filing of the documents or things that contains
`
`the inconsistency.” Uniloc brought this rule to the attention of opposing counsel and,
`
`in response, Unified produced—nothing. Indeed,—
`
`—, Unified did not produce a
`
`single client—specific
`
`F 1
`
`0
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`
`US. Patent 7,092,671
`
`communication (in the form of email or otherwise) involving either Apple -
`
`-. This intentional withholding of documents should create an inference
`
`against Unified.13
`
`While Unified refused to produce any client-specific email communication
`
`with either Apple_ Unified cherry-picked for its production what it
`
`-.
`
`ee [MUM—
`
`_Ie. eve-44.
`
`Unified has effectively admitted, therefore, that at least Apple_
`
`eeene ee benefit from—
`
`—. See me. 897 we ee use.
`
`Indeed, as was the case in RPX, “[Unified] did not point to any other clients whom
`
`it believed might be at risk of infringement claims arising out of the patents on which
`
`the IPR was instituted.” Id.
`
`The produced— also reveal that Apple_
`
`—. The eeeeueee
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`membership agreement with Apple, for example, provides that
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` EX2005 at UP-06. The
`. Id. at UP-23.
`
`between Unified and
`
`In filing the instant Petition against the ’671 patent, Unified
` (e.g., EX2005 at UP-06 and UP-23) and its
`advertised promises to have “complete business alignment” with its clients Apple
`. This evidence reveals that Unified filed the instant petition, at least in
`part, to benefit
` Apple
` and that
` of Unified likely
`desired such a review. See RPX, 897 F.3d at 1351‒53.
`
`It is itself significant that Unified requires its clients (including Apple
`) to pay an additional subscription fee for each defined technology area to
`which the client subscribes; and that Unified Patent claims it “exclusively” uses
`those fees to protect that client’s technologies. See EX2001. There could be no
`practical incentive for a client to pay additional fees unless there is an expectation
`of additional benefit derived from that increased investment. The implication is that
`paying more money for multiple technology areas affords a client an expanded scope
`of protection, including in the form of challenging those patents before the USPTO
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`that are asserted against clients who subscribe to the relevant technology areas.14
`For the foregoing reasons, the record evidence reveals that at least Unified’s
`clients Apple
` are each “a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting,
`established relationship with the petitioner.” RPX, 897 F.3d at 1351.
`
`
` each “has an interest in and will
`Apple
`benefit from [Unified’s] actions” in this trial. Id. at 1353; see also id. at 1354
`(observing the Board has previously credited a patent owner’s assertion that “[i]t is
`Springpath that is accused of infringing the ’799 Patent in the district court litigation,
`not Cisco”). Under RPX, the record evidence clearly reveals that the Petition is
`deficient in failing to name Apple
` as real parties in interest.
`
`3. Unified acted as a proxy for its clients Apple
`
`Viewing the record through the lens of the “more expensive notion of privity”
`clearly suggests that Unified acted as a proxy on behalf of its clients Apple
`
`. RPX, 897 F.3d at 1363 (Reyna, J., concurring). This “independently
`establishes privity under the Taylor framework.” Id. (citing Taylor v. Sturgell, 553
`U.S. 880, 895 (2008)).
`The facts here closely parallel those emphasized in the concurring opinion in
`RPX as supporting a finding of privity. First, the record here “contains evidence
`
`
`
`14 In an update to the agreement between Unified and Apple dated December 1,
`20916, for example,
` See
`EX2005 at UP-37.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`] are
` Apple
`suggesting that the interests of [Unified] and [
`aligned.” Compare, for example, id. at 1340, 43, 57, 62, and 64 (observing that “RPX
`advertises that its ‘interests are 100% aligned with those of [its] clients.’”) with
`EX2001 (“[Unified] structure provides complete alignment between Unified Patents
`and its member companies.”) and EX2006 (again advertising “complete business
`alignment between Unified Patents and its Micro-Pool members.”).
`Second, Apple
` are each “a significant client” for Unified at least
`because of the
`
`. See RPX, 897 F.3d at 1363 (Reyna, J., concurring); see also, e.g., EX2005 at
`UP-48‒UP-50.
`Third, as was the case in RPX, Apple
`Unified. RPX, 897 F.3d at 1363 (Reyna, J., concurring).
`Fourth, Apple
` were both “a preexisting client” of Unified and
`each represented “a significant and growing revenue stream.” RPX, 897 F.3d at 1364
`(Reyna, J., concurring); see also, e.g., EX2005 at UP-48‒UP-50.
`Fifth, “[i]nvalidation of the patent[]-in-suit would directly benefit [
`],” who are
`
` Apple
`
`. See RPX, 897 F.3d at 1363 (Reyna, J.,
`
` “are not competitors” with
`
`concurring).
`Sixth, Unified promotes its “patent validity challenges to its fee-paying
`members” and, as explained further below, Unified has a “documented history of
`acting as a proxy on behalf of its clients in filing IPR petitions.” Id. at 1364.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`These significant parallels with RPX, particularly when viewed as a whole,
`provide sufficient “concrete evidence to suggest that [Unified] was in privity with
`[
`Apple
`].” Id.
`
`4. Unified has a history of acting as a proxy
`Unified has a history of acting as a proxy in challenging patents asserted by
`Uniloc in litigation. Id. at 10−12. To date, Unified has filed at least six inter partes
`review petitions against Uniloc’s patents. See IPR2016-01271, IPR2017-00184,
`IPR2017-01850, IPR2017-2148 (the
`instant Petition), IPR2018-00057, and
`IPR2018-00199. In every instance, the petition filed by Unified corresponded to one
`or more patents asserted by Uniloc in litigation. It is telling that Uniloc owns literally
`hundreds of patents, yet Unified has only challenged certain patents that Uniloc has
`asserted in litigation.
`The timing of when Unified chose to file inter partes reviews challenging
`Uniloc’s patents further suggests Unified did so as a proxy to its paying clients. As
`shown in the list below, Unified filed each of its six petitions against Uniloc’s patents
`within months of Uniloc asserting its patents against certain defendants in district
`court litigation.
`
`• Unified filed IPR2016-01271 against Patent No. 8,566,960 on June 29,
`2016, a month after Uniloc filed cases asserting infringement of that
`same patent by certain defendants. See, e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`Amazon.com Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-00570 (filed in TXED on May 30,
`2016); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google Inc., 2-16-cv-00571 (filed in
`TXED on May 30, 2016); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Home Box Office,
`Inc., 2-16-cv-00572 (filed in TXED on May 30, 2016); Uniloc USA,
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`Inc. et al. v. Hulu, 2-16-cv-00573 (filed in TXED on May 30, 2016);
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Netflex, Inc., 2-16-cv-00574 (filed in TXED
`on May 30, 2016); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Valve Corporation, 2-
`16-cv-00575 (filed in TXED on May 30, 2016).
`
`• Unified filed IPR2017-00184 against Patent No. 7,069,293 on Nov.
`10, 2016, a few months after Uniloc filed cases asserting infringement
`of that same patent by certain defendants. See, e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc.
`et al. v. Valve Corporation, 2-16-cv-00746 (filed in TXED on July 8,
`2016); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Trend Micro Inc., 2-16-cv-00874
`(filed in TXED on Aug. 8, 2016).
`
`• Unified filed IPR2017-01850 against Patent No. 8,839,976 on July26,
`2017, a few months after Uniloc filed cases asserting infringement of
`that same patent by Apple. See Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 2-
`16-cv-00258 (filed in TXED on April 3, 2017).
`
`• Unified filed IPR2017-02148 (the instant Petition) against Patent No.
`6,564,229 on Sept. 27, 2017, a few months after Uniloc filed cases
`asserting infringement of that same patent by certain defendants. See,
`e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Ubisoft, Inc., 2:17-cv-00175 (filed in
`TXED on March 6, 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish Games,
`Inc., 2:17-cv-00172 (filed in TXED on March 6, 2017); Uniloc USA,
`Inc. et al v. Nexon America, Inc., 2:17-cv-00276 (filed in TXED on
`April 6, 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 2-16-
`cv-00305 (filed in TXED on April 12, 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.
`v. Square Enix, Inc., 2-16-cv-00302 (filed in TXED on April 12,
`2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Akamai Tech., Inc., 2:17-cv-00375
`(filed in TXED on May 1, 2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish
`Games, Inc., 2:17-cv-01183 (filed in WAWD on Aug. 3, 2017); Uniloc
`USA, Inc. et al v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 3:17-cv-02116 (filed in
`TXND on Aug. 11, 2017).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`• Unified filed IPR2018-00057 against Patent No. 6,110,228 on Oct. 24,
`2017, a few months after Uniloc filed cases asserting infringement of
`that same patent by certain defendants. See, e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc. et
`al. v. Square Enix, Inc., 2-16-cv-00302 (filed in TXED on April 12,
`2017); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 2-16-cv-00305
`(filed in TXED on April 12, 2017).
`
`• Unified filed IPR2018-00199 against Patent No. 7,092,671 on Dec. 11,
`2017, a few months after Uniloc filed cases asserting infringement of
`that same patent by certain defendants. See, e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc. et
`al. v. Apple Inc., 2-17-cv-00457 (filed in TXED on May 26, 2017);
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., 2-
`17-cv-00562 (filed in TXED on Aug. 1, 2017).
`As shown above, Unified has demonstrated a repeated pattern of filing
`petitions against Uniloc-owned patents mere months after Uniloc filed complaints
`asserting those patents. To date, Unified has left the remainder of Uniloc’s extensive
`patent portfolio untouched (though Uniloc expects Unified will soon file additional
`challenges, if only to blur the tracks it has already left behind).
`The undeniable correlation concerning which ones of Uniloc’s patents have
`been challenged, combined with the timing of those inter partes review filings,
`confirms that Unified is acting as a proxy for
`
`. As further evidence of a pattern of conduct, in several
` stand to benefit from multiple inter partes
`instances,
`review petitions filed by Unified, had Unified been successful.
`
`5. Unified has substantial legal relationships with Apple
`
`Under Taylor, privity can also be independently shown where “the parties
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`have a ‘substantial legal relationship.’” RPX, 897 F.3d at 1361 (Reyna, J.,
`concurring) (citing Taylor, 553 U.S. at 894.). One common characteristic is that the
`parties “share a high degree of commonality of proprietary or financial interest.” Id.
`(citing In re Gottheiner, 703 F.2d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that pr
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
