`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics
`Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A.
`LLC, and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2018-00461
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, and 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................................... 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS .......................................................... 2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF .......................... 2
`
`A. Legal Standards ........................................................................................ 2
`
`B. LGE’s Motion for Joinder is Timely ........................................................ 3
`
`C.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate .............................................................................. 4
`
`1. No New Grounds of Unpatentability in the Petition ........................ 5
`
`2. No Impact on the Schedule for the Existing IPR Proceeding .......... 5
`
`3. Briefing and Discovery Will be Simplified ..................................... 6
`
`4. No Prejudice to Patent Owner .......................................................... 8
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics
`
`Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc., LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A. LLC, and LG
`
`Electronics Alabama, Inc. (collectively “LGE” or “Petitioners”) respectfully
`
`submit this Motion for Joinder together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 (“LGE’s Petition”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), LGE requests inter partes review and joinder with ZTE
`
`(USA) Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc.,. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC, IPR2018-00111 (“the
`
`ZTE/Samsung IPR”), which was filed on October 26, 2017. LGE’s Petition is
`
`substantively identical to the petition in the ZTE/Samsung IPR—challenging the
`
`same claims of the ’550 Patent on the same grounds while relying on the same
`
`prior art, arguments, and evidence. This Motion for Joinder and accompanying
`
`Petition are timely, being filed before a decision instituting trial in the
`
`ZTE/Samsung IPR. Counsel for LGE has conferred with petitioner’s counsel in the
`
`ZTE/Samsung IPR, and this Motion for Joinder is not opposed.
`
`Joinder is appropriate here because (i) LGE’s Petition is substantively
`
`identical to the petition in the ZTE/Samsung IPR and (ii) LGE agrees to an
`
`“understudy role” and relies upon the same expert declaration as relied upon in the
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`ZTE/Samsung IPR, simplifying briefing and discovery. Accordingly, joinder will
`
`provide for a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of related proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, LGE respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion for
`
`Joinder.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`The owner of the ’550 Patent, Fundamental Innovation Systems
`1.
`
`International LLC (“FISI”), sued LGE alleging infringement of the ’550 Patent in
`
`the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`LGE was served with FISI’s complaint on January 18, 2017.
`
`On October 26, 2017, ZTE (USA) Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., (collectively “ZTE”), which had also
`
`been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’550 Patent, timely filed
`
`a Petition for inter partes review challenging claims 1-18 of the ’550 Patent. See
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc., et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC,
`
`IPR2018-00111, Paper 1 (PTAB Oct. 26, 2017).
`
`4.
`
`LGE’s Petition and this motion are being filed before a decision on
`
`institution of the ZTE/Samsung IPR.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`A. Legal Standards
`The Board has authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a party who files a
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`proper inter partes review petition to a previously filed inter partes review
`
`proceeding. This authority is discretionary. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122. The moving party has the burden of proof and 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 Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc, IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper 17 at 3-4 (PTAB July 29, 2013).
`
`The legislative history of the AIA suggests that the joinder may be granted
`
`as a matter of right where the later petitioner files an identical petition with
`
`identical grounds of unpatentability. See 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.”)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`LGE’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`B.
`A Motion for Joinder is timely if the moving party files within one month of
`
`institution of the inter partes review for which joinder is requested. 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`§ 42.122(b). Because LGE files this motion before a decision on the institution of
`
`the ZTE/Samsung IPR, this motion is timely. Additionally, this Motion for Joinder
`
`is being filed before any motions have been filed requesting termination of the
`
`ZTE/Samsung IPR.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`C.
`Although joinder is discretionary, it is appropriate here because LGE’s
`
`Petition does “not present issues that might complicate or delay” the existing
`
`ZTE/Samsung IPR. See Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs & Bioresources, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00556, Paper 19 at 6 (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”). In fact, because LGE’s Petition is
`
`substantively identical to the petition in the ZTE/Samsung IPR, joinder would
`
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the related proceedings.
`
`Joinder would have little, if any, impact on the ZTE/Samsung IPR because no new
`
`grounds would be added, the schedule would not be affected, no additional briefing
`
`or discovery would be required, and no additional burdens would be placed on
`
`Patent Owner, as detailed below.
`
`Further, if ZTE/Samsung moves to terminate the ZTE/Samsung IPR and is
`
`dismissed before the Board decides this Motion for Joinder, LGE respectfully
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`requests that the Board exercise its discretion and decline to terminate the Patent
`
`Owner at least until the Board considers this motion.
`
`Accordingly, joinder is appropriate because it eliminates the possibility of
`
`duplicate efforts and ensures a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of these
`
`proceedings.
`
`1.
`
`No New Grounds of Unpatentability in the Petition
`
`LGE’s Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the ZTE/Samsung
`
`IPR. In particular, LGE’s Petition challenges the same claims (1-18) under the
`
`same grounds, while relying on the same arguments, expert declaration, and
`
`evidence. Accordingly, no new claims and no new grounds will be added to the
`
`ZTE/Samsung IPR as a result of the Board allowing joinder. Denial of joinder,
`
`however, would result in parallel proceedings involving identical grounds of
`
`unpatentability and needless duplication of effort.
`
`2.
`
`No Impact on the Schedule for the Existing IPR Proceeding
`
`Because LGE’s Petition challenges no additional claims and raises no new
`
`grounds of unpatentability, joinder should have no impact on any trial schedule of
`
`the ZTE/Samsung IPR. LGE will adhere to all applicable deadlines set forth in the
`
`ZTE/Samsung IPR Scheduling Order and will coordinate with ZTE’s counsel to
`
`consolidate filings. Additionally, no additional expert discovery will be needed as
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`LGE’s Petition relies upon the same declaration testimony from the same expert,
`
`Mr. James Geier, as relied upon by the petition in the ZTE/Samsung IPR.
`
`Additionally, if joined, LGE will not file additional briefs outside of the
`
`consolidated filings, will not request any additional deposition time, and will not
`
`request any additional oral hearing time.1 In the event the ZTE/Samsung IPR is
`
`terminated with respect to the petitioner, LGE intends to “step into the shoes” of
`
`the dismissed petitioner and materially participate in the joined proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons above, joinder of LGE to the ZTE/Samsung
`
`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).
`
`3.
`
`Briefing and Discovery Will be Simplified
`
`Given that LGE’s positions in its petition are identical to the positions in the
`
`ZTE/Samsung IPR, LGE agrees to consolidated filings for all substantive papers
`
`
`1 While LGE will not materially participate in calls with the Board, depositions,
`
`and any oral hearing, LGE anticipates that its counsel may attend such events.
`
`Additionally, LGE’s role does not foreclose communication between LGE and
`
`other petitioners in the ZTE/Samsung IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`
`and to consolidated discovery in the joined proceeding. LGE explicitly agrees to
`
`take an “understudy” role, described by the Board in other proceedings:
`
`(a) all filings by [LGE] in the joined proceeding be consolidated with
`[the filings of the petitioners in the ZTE/Samsung IPR], unless a filing
`solely concerns issues that do not involve [the petitioners in the
`ZTE/Samsung IPR]; (b) [LGE] shall not be permitted to raise any new
`grounds not already instituted by the Board in the [ZTE/Samsung
`IPR], or introduce any argument or discovery not already introduced
`by [the petitioners in the ZTE/Samsung IPR]; (c) [LGE] shall be
`bound by any agreement between [Patent Owner] and [the petitioners
`in the ZTE/Samsung IPR] concerning discovery and/or depositions;
`and (d) [LGE] at deposition shall not receive any direct,
`crossexamination or redirect time beyond that permitted for [the
`petitioners in the ZTE/Samsung IPR] alone under either 37 C.F.R. §
`42.53 or any agreement between [Patent Owner] and [the petitioners
`in the ZTE/Samsung IPR].
`See IPR2014-00550, No. 38 at 5 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2015). LGE will assume the
`
`primary role only if ZTE/Samsung cease to participate in the ZTE/Samsung IPR.
`
`LGE is essentially asking the Board to join them as a party to the ZTE/Samsung
`
`IPR. Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508, Paper 18, pp.
`
`10-11. The petitioners in the ZTE/Samsung IPR have no objection to LGE joining
`
`in an “understudy” role.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`By accepting an “understudy” role, LGE can comply with the current
`
`
`
`schedule and avoid any duplication of effort by the Board or the Patent Owner.
`
`These steps will minimize any potential complications or delay that potentially
`
`may have resulted by joinder.
`
`4.
`
`No Prejudice to Patent Owner
`
`Joinder of LGE to the ZTE/Samsung IPR will not create any additional
`
`burden on Patent Owner. The Patent Owner need not expend any additional
`
`resources above and beyond those required in the current ZTE/Samsung IPR.
`
`Moreover, joinder eliminates the need for Patent Owner to participate in parallel
`
`inter partes review proceedings instituted upon identical grounds of patentability.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, LGE respectfully requests that the Board institute
`
`the instant inter partes review upon the same grounds in IPR2018-00111 and join
`
`the proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 16, 2018
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Customer No. 27683
`
`
`Telephone: 214-651-5533
`
`Facsimile: 214-200-0853
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,624,550 Claims 1-18
`IPR2018-00461 / Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105, service was made on Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service January 16, 2018
`
`Manner of service FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22, and 42.122(b)
`
`Botos Churchill IP Law LLP (TNT IP LLC)
`430 Mountain Avenue, Suite 401
`New Providence, NJ 07974
`
`
`Elizabeth L. DeRieux (ederieux@capshawlaw.com)
`Edward J. DeFranco (eddefranco@quinnemanuel.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`
`Persons served per
`USPTO records
`
`
`
`
`Also served by
`electronic mail on
`the attorneys of
`record for Plaintiff
`in the concurrent
`litigation matter
`
`
`
`
`
`