`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`
`WISTRON CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________________
`
`CASE: IPR2018-00328
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,337,241
`____________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .............................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS .................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF .................. 2
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Legal Standards ............................................................................... 2
`
`Joinder is Appropriate ..................................................................... 3
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`No New Grounds of Unpatentability are Presented ............. 7
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact The Board’s Ability to
`Complete the Review in a Timely Manner ........................... 8
`
`iii. Briefing and Discovery Will be Simplified .......................... 9
`
`iv.
`
`There is No Prejudice to the Patent Owner ........................... 9
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Wistron Corp. (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Motion for Joinder
`
`together with the presently submitted Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-24 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241 (“this Petition”
`
`or “the Present Petition” and “the 072 patent”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §315(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner hereby requests IPR of the challenged claims and
`
`joinder with Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc., IPR2017-01392 (“the Intel IPR”) which
`
`was instituted on November 30, 2017. Joinder is appropriate because it will
`
`promote judicial efficiency, promote consistent resolution of the unpatentability
`
`grounds at issue and will not prejudice the parties of the Intel IPR.
`
`This Motion and this Petition are being filed within one month of the institution
`
`decision in the Intel IPR, and are therefore timely. Counsel for Petitioner has
`
`conferred with Counsel for Intel as well as Counsel for Cavium Inc., which was
`
`previously joined to the Intel IPR, and both Intel and Cavium do not oppose
`
`joinder. Additionally, Counsel for Petitioner has conferred with Counsel for Patent
`
`Owner Alacritech Inc. (“Alacritech”) by sending an email indicating intent to file
`
`“silent understudy” motions for joinder on December 18, 2017, by sending a draft
`
`of the motion for joinder on December 19, 2017, and drafts of the petitions on
`
`December 19, 2017 and December 20, 2017. Patent Owner has not indicated
`
`whether or not it opposes this motion.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`On June 30, 2016, Alacritech sued Petitioner, SMS InfoComm Corporation,
`
`and Wiwynn Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of
`
`the ‘241 patent. See Alacritech Inc. v. Wistron Corp. et al., case no. 2-16-cv-00692
`
`(E.D. Tex. June 30, 2016). On the same day in a different proceeding (“the Dell
`
`proceeding”), Alacritech sued Dell Inc. See Alacritech Inc. v. Dell Inc., case no. 2-
`
`16-cv-00695 (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2016). On February 15, 2017, Intel intervened in
`
`the Dell proceeding and subsequently timely filed the Intel Petition on May 9,
`
`2017 within one year of the commencement of the Dell Proceeding. See Intel
`
`Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc., IPR2017-01392, Paper 2 (P.T.A.B. May 9, 2017). The
`
`Board instituted IPR of the challenged claims on November 30, 2017. On
`
`December 8, 2017, Cavium, Inc. was joined to the Intel Petition. Cavium, Inc. v.
`
`Alacritech, Inc., IPR2017-01728, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2017).
`
`As a result of this Motion, Petitioner is not subject to the one-year time bar
`
`for this Petition. See 35 U.S.C. §315(b); 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b). Accordingly the
`
`filing of this Motion and this Petition are timely. See 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b). The
`
`grounds of unpatentability are identical to the positions in the Intel IPR.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`a. Legal Standard
`
`The Board has the authority under 35 U.S.C. §315(c) to grant a motion for
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`joinder of a party filing a proper IPR petition to a previously instituted IPR
`
`proceeding. This authority is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. §315(b); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.122(b).
`
`In exercising this discretionary authority, the Board considers the impact
`
`joinder would have on the proceedings, including substantive and procedural
`
`issues, as well as other issues that may be implicated by joinder, while remaining
`
`“mindful that patent trial regulations, including the rules for joinder, must be
`
`constructed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`proceeding.” See Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385,
`
`Paper No. 17 at 3 (P.T.A.B. July 29, 2013) at 3. The Board should consider “the
`
`policy preference for joining a party that does not present new issues that might
`
`complicate or delay an existing proceeding.” Id. at 10. Under this framework,
`
`joinder of this Petition with the Intel IPR is appropriate.
`
`Specifically, 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.” Id. at 4. Each of these issues is addressed fully
`
`herein and each favors granting this Motion.
`
`b. Joinder is Appropriate
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Although joinder is discretionary, it is appropriate here because this Petition
`
`does “not present issues that might complicate or delay” the instituted Intel IPR.
`
`See Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs & Bioresources, Inc., IPR2014-00556, Paper
`
`19 at 6 (P.T.A.B. July 9, 2014) (“we are mindful of a policy preference for joining
`
`a party that does not present new issues that might complicate or delay an existing
`
`proceeding”). As this Petition contains the same ground on which the Intel IPR
`
`was instituted—and no additional grounds—joinder would secure the just, speedy,
`
`and inexpensive resolution of the related proceedings.
`
`This Petition presents identical grounds, relies on the same prior art, and
`
`substantially the same expert declaration of the same expert as the Intel IPR.
`
`Additionally, given that Intel and Petitioner have presented identical arguments
`
`relying on identical evidence, Petitioner agrees that, should this Motion be granted,
`
`Petitioner will not file additional briefing, will not request additional deposition
`
`time, and will not request any additional oral hearing time.1 With regard to any
`
`1 Petitioner reserves the right to attend depositions, the oral hearing, phone
`
`conferences, and other events that may occur during the proceeding. However
`
`Petitioner’s involvement will not be an impediment to scheduling such
`
`activities. In order to ensure that any potential transition in the event of an Intel
`
`termination, Petitioner respectfully requests that should this Motion be granted,
`
`they be included as an observer in all proceedings.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`oral hearing, Intel—to the extent they do not leave the proceeding—will be
`
`responsible for the presentation before the Board and Petitioner will not request
`
`any additional time to independently argue any points or attempt to submit its own
`
`demonstratives. Accordingly, Petitioner plans to play the role of a “silent
`
`understudy” in the proceedings unless Intel terminates its involvement in the Intel
`
`IPR. Family Care Ltd. v. Allergen, Inc., IPR 2017-00566 Paper 12, page 9
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 12, 2017).
`
`Petitioner notes that Cavium, Inc. has been joined to the Intel IPR.
`
`Cavium’s joinder has minimal impact on this Motion, but Petitioner agrees that
`
`should Intel terminate its involvement, Petitioner will continue to play the role of a
`
`“silent understudy” to Cavium’s involvement in the proceeding.
`
`Petitioner moves to join the Intel IPR to ensure that the instituted proceeding
`
`reaches a Final Written Decision in the event that Intel settles with Patent Owner
`
`and the parties request the review be dismissed. In that regard, “[a]n inter partes
`
`review…shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of
`
`the petitioner and the patent owner.” 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). In the event that the
`
`Intel IPR is terminated with respect to Intel and Cavium, Petitioner intends to “step
`
`into the shoes” of the dismissed petitioner and materially participate in the joined
`
`proceedings at that time.
`
`In previous proceedings, the Board has exercised its discretion not to
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`terminate a review after dismissing the petitioner because of a pending joinder
`
`motion in a related proceeding. See MediaTek Inc., et al. v. Bandspeed, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00314, Paper 20 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2015) (“We exercise the
`
`discretion afforded under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) to decline, at this time, to terminate
`
`these proceedings with respect to Patent Owner”). Further, the Board noted that a
`
`motion for joinder was pending in MediaTek and exercised its discretion to wait for
`
`a ruling on the motion for joinder to consider whether to terminate the instituted
`
`IPR.
`
`In the event Intel and Cavium move to terminate the Intel IPR before the
`
`Board decides this Motion, Petitioner respectfully requests that any such
`
`determination with regard to termination be delayed until the Board has ruled on
`
`this Motion. If the Intel IPR is terminated before joinder occurs, the resources
`
`expended by the Board and the parties would be wasted and a proceeding with
`
`identical grounds of unpatentability would be repeated in the district court,
`
`requiring the parties to expend duplicative resources rearguing the same issues and
`
`reiterating the same arguments.
`
`Petitioner notes that it would be time barred from filing a Petition without
`
`this Motion. However, joinder is warranted to permit Petitioner to protect its
`
`interest in ensuring the instituted proceedings are seen through to Final Written
`
`Decision. See 37 C.F. R. § 42.122(b).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Petitioner also submits that this Motion has been authorized by 37 C.F.R.
`
`42.122(b) which “authorize[s] the filing of a motion for joinder.” ZTE
`
`Corporation v. Cellular Communications Equipment, IPR2017-01079, Paper 10 at
`
`p.5 (P.T.A.B October 4, 2017). Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully submits that
`
`pre-authorization from the Board is not necessary.
`
`Accordingly, joinder is appropriate in the present case as the grant of this
`
`Motion would eliminate
`
`the possibility of duplicate efforts, expensive
`
`reconsideration of decided issues and ensures a just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of these proceedings. For the reasons above, joinder of the Present IPR
`
`to the Intel IPR will not affect the Board’s ability to complete its review and issue
`
`a final decision within the statutory time limits under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c).
`
`i. No New Grounds of Unpatentability are Presented
`
`The Board instituted the Intel IPR on one ground based on 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`with respect to the challenged claims with regard to U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618
`
`(“Erickson”), Andrew Tanenbaum, COMPUTER NETWORKS (3d ed. 1996)
`
`(“Tanenbaum”) and “Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End
`
`Performance” by Alteon Networks (“Alteon”). This Petition asserts that the
`
`challenged claims of the 241 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
`
`Erickson, Tanenbaum, and Alteon.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`This Petition challenges the same claims as the Intel IPR, relying on the
`
`same grounds as the Intel IPR, with the same arguments as the Intel IPR, and relies
`
`on the same evidence and the same testimony of Dr. Horst as the Intel IPR.
`
`Accordingly no new claims and no new grounds of unpatentability will be added to
`
`the Intel IPR as a result of a grant of this Motion. However, should the Board elect
`
`to deny this Motion and in the event Intel terminates the Intel IPR before a Final
`
`Written Decision can be reached, extensive resources by the parties as well as by
`
`the Board would have been wasted. This Motion seeks to ensure that the
`
`proceedings continue through a Final Written Decision.
`
`ii. Joinder Will Not Impact The Board’s Ability to Complete the
`
`Review in a Timely Manner
`
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability
`
`to complete the Intel IPR in a timely manner. The Board endeavors to complete
`
`IPR proceedings and issue final written decisions within one year of institution.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Granting this Motion will not
`
`affect the Board’s ability to issue such a decision within this required one-year
`
`timeframe because this Petition contains the identical ground on which the Intel
`
`IPR was instituted and Petitioner agrees to undertake the role of a silent understudy
`
`unless Intel terminates their involvement in the proceeding.
`
`Should this Motion be granted, Petitioner will not file additional briefing,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`will not request additional deposition time, and will not request any additional oral
`
`hearing time. Moreover, granting this Motion will not impact the Board’s Trial
`
`Schedule. Accordingly joinder of this Petition to the Intel IPR will not affect the
`
`Board’s ability to complete its review and issue a final written decision within the
`
`statutory time limits under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c).
`
`iii. Briefing and Discovery Will be Simplified
`
`The aforementioned agreements between Petitioner and Intel will ensure a
`
`speedy and simplified trial, minimizing any impact granting this Motion may have
`
`on the proceedings. As noted, Petitioner will not rely upon any additional
`
`evidence, Petitioner will not request any additional briefing, Petitioner will not
`
`request any additional time during depositions or at hearings.
`
`Accordingly, if this Motion is granted, briefing and discovery in the joined
`
`proceeding will be no more complex than if Petitioner had never been joined.
`
`Consolidated briefing and discovery will ensure a simplified and efficient joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`iv. There is No Prejudice to the Patent Owner
`
`Granting this Motion will not create any additional burden on the Patent
`
`Owner. The Patent Owner will not be required to expend any additional resources
`
`above and beyond what they are already required to do in the Intel IPR. Moreover,
`
`Petitioner notes that joinder will bind Petitioner to the same estoppel provisions
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`that apply to Intel with regard to Erickson and Tanenbaum. Accordingly, there
`
`will in fact be a reduced burden to Patent Owner should this Motion be granted.
`
`By allowing the identical grounds of unpatentability of this Petition and the
`
`Intel IPR to be addressed in a single proceeding, the interests of all parties and the
`
`Board will be well served.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the arguments set forth above, Petitioner respectfully requests that
`
`the Board institute the presently submitted Petition upon the same grounds
`
`instituted in IPR2017-01392 and grant this Motion to join this proceeding with that
`
`of instituted IPR2017-01392.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by
`
`K&L Gates LLP,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Benjamin E. Weed/
`Benjamin E. Weed
`Reg. No. 65,939
`Date: December 21, 2017
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 21, 2017, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing was caused to be served via Federal Express Priority Overnight® on the
`
`following counsel of record for Patent Owner at the following addresses:
`
`MARK A. LAUER
`Silicon Edge Law Group LLP
`7901 Stoneridge Drive
`Suite 528
`Pleasanton, CA 94588
`
`With a courtesy copy emailed to the Patent Owner’s litigation counsel of
`record in IPR2017-01392:
`
`James M. Glass
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Brian E. Mack
`Ziyong Li
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`seanli@quinnemanuel.com
`
`And a courtesy copy emailed to Intel’s counsel of record in IPR2017-01392:
`
`Garland T. Stephens
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Anne Cappella
`Adrian Percer
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`jason.lang@weil.com
`anne.cappella@weil.com
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`Intel.Alacritech.IPR@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`And a courtesy copy emailed to Cavium’s counsel of record, as joined to
`IPR2017-01392:
`
`Patrick D. McPherson
`David T. Xue
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`DTXue@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Benjamin E. Weed/
`Benjamin E. Weed
`Reg. No. 65,939
`Customer No. 24573
`K&L GATES LLP
`Benjamin.weed.PTAB@klgates.com
`T: (312) 781-7166
`F: (312) 827-8152
`Date: December 21, 2017
`70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`