`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Dell Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Alacritech, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`Filing Date: June 25, 2007
`Issue Date: March 2, 2010
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-00375
`
`Title: Fast-Path Apparatus For Transmitting Data Corresponding To A TCP
`Connection
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Dell Inc. (“Dell” or “Petitioner”) submits this motion for joinder of the
`
`petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072 (“the ’072 patent”) filed
`
`on December 27, 2017, Case No. IPR2018-00375 (the “Petition”). Dell’s Petition
`
`is based on grounds identical to those that form the basis for the instituted inter
`
`partes reviews initiated by Intel Corporation (“Intel”) concerning the same patent,
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406 (the “Intel ’072 IPR”), to which Cavium’s inter partes
`
`review, Case No. IPR2017-01707 (the “Cavium ’072 IPR) has been joined, and to
`
`which Case No. IPR2018-00329 (the “Wistron ’072 IPR”) also seeks joinder.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that its Petition be instituted and moves that
`
`the Petition be joined with the Intel ’072 IPR pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b). Petitioner merely requests an opportunity to join
`
`with the Intel ’072 IPR as an “understudy” to Intel and Cavium, only assuming an
`
`active role in the event Intel and Cavium are no longer a party to these proceedings.
`
`Petitioner does not seek to alter the grounds upon which the Board instituted the
`
`Intel ’072 IPR, and joinder will have no impact on the Intel ’072 IPR’s existing
`
`schedule. Petitioner has conferred with counsel for Intel and Cavium, which do not
`
`oppose this motion. This motion is timely as the Intel ’072 IPR petition was
`
`instituted on November 28, 2017 and this filing is made within one month of that
`
`institution date. 35 U.S.C. §§ 21(b), 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`Alacritech, the owner of the ’072 patent, sued CenturyLink, Inc., Wistron
`
`Corp., and Dell Inc., in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in July
`
`2015 for infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,124,205, 7,237,036, 7,337,241, 7,673,072,
`
`8,131,880, 8,805,948, 9,055,104, and 7,945,699 (collectively, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”). The litigations are Alacritech, Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., 2:16-cv-00693-
`
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Alacritech, Inc. v. Wistron Corp., 2:16-cv-00692-JRG-RSP
`
`(E.D. Tex.); and Alacritech, Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.).
`
`In May and June 2017, Intel Corporation filed twelve petitions for inter partes
`
`review against the Asserted Patents, including Case Nos. IPR2017-01391 (‘036
`
`patent), -01392 (‘241 patent), -01393 (‘104 patent), -01395 (‘948 patent), -01402
`
`(‘205 patent), -01405 (‘205 patent), -01406 (‘072 patent), -01409 (‘880 patent), -
`
`01410 (‘880 patent), -01559 (‘699 patent), -01705 (‘072 patent), and -01713 (‘241
`
`patent). Decisions granting institution have been issued in IPR Case Nos. IPR2017-
`
`01391, -01392, -01393, -01405, -01406, -01409, and -01410. Case No. IPR2017-
`
`01732 is awaiting a decision on institution. In addition to this motion to join
`
`IPR2017-01405, Petitioner is filing related motions to join other instituted Intel
`
`IPRs. Intel has also filed more recent petitions in Case Nos. IPR2018-00226 and -
`
`00234. Wistron has filed more recent petitions in Case Nos. IPR2018-00327, -
`
`00328, and -00329.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`In June and July 2017, Cavium, Inc., filed related petitions for inter partes
`
`review, including Case Nos. IPR2017-01707 (’072 Patent), -01714 (’104 Patent), -
`
`01718 (’036 Patent), -01728 (’241 Patent), -01732 (’072 Patent), -01735 (’205
`
`Patent), -01736 (’880 Patent), and -01737 (’880 Patent), along with motions for
`
`joinder with the corresponding Intel IPRs. Case Nos. IPR2017-01707, -01714, -
`
`01718, -01728, -01735, -01736, and -01737 have each been instituted and Cavium’s
`
`motions for joinder to the corresponding Intel IPRs have been granted.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD AND APPLICABLE RULES
`
`Joinder is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads as follows:
`
`Joinder.— If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director,
`
`in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review
`
`any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the
`
`Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or
`
`the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines
`
`warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`
`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.” See Decision on Joinder, IPR2013-00385 (Paper No. 17, July 29, 2013);
`
`see also Order Authorizing Joinder, IPR2013-00004 (Paper No. 15, April 24, 2013.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits the factors outlined below in support of granting the present
`
`Motion for Joinder.
`
`IV. PETITIONER MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTION FOR
`JOINDER
`
`Petitioner submits that (1) joinder is appropriate because it will promote
`
`efficient determination of the validity of the ’072 patent without prejudice to
`
`Alacritech, Inc.; (2) Petitioner’s petition raises the same grounds for unpatentability
`
`as the Intel ‘072 IPR petition and is based on the same testimony from the same
`
`technical expert; (3) joinder would not affect the expected schedule in the Intel ’072
`
`IPR nor would it increase the complexity of that proceeding; and (4) Petitioner is
`
`willing to accept an understudy role in the Intel ’072 IPR to simplify discovery and
`
`minimize the burden on the parties and the Board. Accordingly, joinder should be
`
`granted.
`
`A.
`
`Joinder Will Promote the Efficient Determination of the ’072
`Patent’s Validity and Will Not Prejudice Alacritech
`
`Granting joinder and allowing Petitioner to assume an understudy role will
`
`not prejudice Alacritech or burden the Board. The Petition does not raise any issues
`
`that are not already before the Board in the Intel ’072 IPR and thus the Board would
`
`receive consolidated filings for the joined IPRs instead of redundant submissions in
`
`separate IPRs. Likewise, Alacritech would only need to respond to a single set of
`
`filings to which it would already be obligated to respond. The Board has granted
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`motions for joinder in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Decision on Joinder,
`
`IPR2014-00743 (Paper 10, June 18, 2014).
`
`Joinder is appropriate here to promote judicial efficiency and avoid
`
`unnecessary expense to the parties.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Petition Raises the Same Grounds as the Intel ’072
`IPR, Which Has Been Instituted
`
`The Petition asserts only grounds on which the Board has already determined
`
`to grant institution in the Intel ’072 IPR, supported by the same technical expert and
`
`the same testimony. There are no new arguments for the Board to consider.
`
`Likewise, the Petition relies on the same exhibits.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Will Not Affect the Schedule of the Intel ’072 IPR
`
`Because Petitioner filed its pending IPR and corresponding motion for joinder
`
`timely after the institution decision on the Intel ’072 IPR and is willing to accept the
`
`existing schedule, allowing Petitioner to join the Intel ’072 IPR will not impact the
`
`scheduling order for the Intel ‘072 IPR or the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`within the statutory period. Section 316(a)(11) requires that IPR proceedings be
`
`completed and the Board’s final decision issued no later than one year after the date
`
`on which the Director notices the institution of the IPR. See also 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(c). Without any new issues present, there is no reason to delay or alter the
`
`trial schedule already present in the Intel IPR, and Petitioner explicitly consents to
`
`the existing trial schedule.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, Petitioner submits that Alacritech does not need to file a Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response to its Petition, and requests that the Board proceed
`
`without one. This is consistent with the Board’s Order in IPR2013-00256 (Paper 8,
`
`June 13, 2013), which allowed the Patent Owner to file a preliminary response
`
`addressing only those points raised in the new petition that were different from those
`
`in the granted petition. Here, because the invalidity grounds in the Petition are
`
`identical to those raised in the instituted Intel ’072 IPR, there are no new arguments
`
`for Alacritech to address. Alternatively, Petitioner requests that the Board accelerate
`
`the deadline for Alacritech’s Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to respond to
`
`this Petition so the Board can timely address the institution of the current Petition in
`
`order to ensure that joinder would not impact any deadlines set in the Intel ’072 IPR
`
`schedule.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner Agrees to Assume a Limited Role
`
`Petitioner agrees to an understudy role and does not raise any issues that are
`
`not already before the Board. In particular, Petitioner agrees that, in the joined
`
`proceeding, the following conditions shall apply so long as Intel remains an active
`
`party, as previously approved by the Board in similar circumstances:
`
`(a) all filings by Petitioner in the joined proceeding be consolidated with the
`
`filings of Intel, unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve Intel or
`
`Cavium;
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Petitioner shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already
`
`instituted by the Board, or introduce any argument or discovery not already
`
`introduced by Intel or Cavium;
`
`(c) Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and
`
`Intel or Cavium concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`
`(d) Petitioner at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross examination or
`
`redirect time beyond that permitted for Intel or Cavium in this proceeding alone
`
`under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between Patent Owner and Intel or
`
`Cavium.
`
`See Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novartis AG, Case No. IPR2015-00268, slip op. at 5–6
`
`(PTAB Apr. 10, 2015) (Paper 17) (finding that same proposed limitations “are
`
`consistent with the ‘understudy’ role that Petitioner agrees to assume, as well as
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that its presence would not require introducing any additional
`
`arguments, briefing, or discovery.”). Petitioner would assume a primary role only if
`
`Intel and Cavium ceased to participate in the proceeding.
`
`The invalidity grounds in the Petition are the same as those instituted in the
`
`Intel ‘072 IPR. The expert testimony in support of the grounds are presented by the
`
`same expert and address the same grounds that were instituted in the Intel ’072 IPR.
`
`Given that Petitioner will assume an understudy role to Intel and Cavium, joinder
`
`with this IPR proceeding will not introduce any additional arguments, briefing, or
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`need for discovery. See Decision on Joinder, IPR2013-00495 (Paper 13, Sept. 16,
`
`2013).
`
`As long as Intel or Cavium remain in the joined IPR, Petitioner agrees to
`
`assume a limited “understudy” role. Petitioner would only take on an active role if
`
`Intel and Cavium were no longer parties to the IPR. Discovery will be simplified in
`
`that there will be no need for redundant depositions, briefing, or hearings.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’072 patent be granted and that the proceedings be joined
`
`with IPR2017-01406.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 27, 2017
`
`
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, North Carolina 28280
`P 704-444-1119
`F 704-444-1111
`christopher.douglas@alston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Christopher Douglas/
`
`Christopher Douglas
`
`Reg. No. 56,950
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.105 and
`
`§ 42.6(e), that service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service December 27, 2017
`
`Manner of service
`
`Electronic service by FTP (consented to by Patent Owner)
`
`Documents served Motion for Joinder
`
`Persons served
`
`Patent Owner’s Address of Record:
`
`MARK LAUER
`Silicon Edge Law Group LLP
`7901 STONERIDGE DRIVE
`SUITE 528
`Pleasanton, California 94588
`Fax: (925) 621-2119
`Phone: 925-621-2121
`Email: Mark@SiliconEdgeLaw.com
`
`
`
`Additional Addresses Known as Likely to Effect Service:
`
`Claude M Stern
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan - Redwood
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr.
`5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Email: claudestern@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`Jim Glass
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan – New York
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,
`New York, New York 10010
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`Dated: December 27, 2017
`
`
`
` / Christopher TL Douglas /
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Christopher TL Douglas
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners
`Registration No. 56,950
`
`10
`
`