`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`NIDEC CORPORATION AND
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00598
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`Title: Stator Assembly Made from a Molded
`Web of Core Segments and Motor Using Same
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) TO RELATED
`INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2017-01631
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Material Facts and Related Proceedings ..................................... 2
`
`III. Statement of Reasons for Relief Requests ....................................................... 3
`
`A. Legal Standard .................................................................................................. 3
`
`B. Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder is Timely ........................................................ 4
`
`C. Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder .......................................................... 4
`
`1. Joinder is Appropriate ................................................................................... 4
`
`2. The Petition Presents No New Grounds of Unpatentability ......................... 4
`
`3. Joinder Will Not Impact the Denso IPR Trial Schedule ............................... 4
`
`4. Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified .................................................. 5
`
`IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00004 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15) ......................... 3
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH,
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01386 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2016) (Paper 9) .......................... 7
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00268 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2015) (Paper 17) ......................... 6
`
`Samsung Elecs., Co., Ltd., et al. v. Raytheon Co.,
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00962 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (Paper 12) ....................2, 3
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01353 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) (Paper 11) .....................4, 7
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) .................................................................................................1, 3
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ....................................................................................... 1, 3, 4
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioners Nidec Corporation (“Nidec”) and American Honda Motor Co.,
`
`Inc. (“Honda”) respectfully submit this Motion for Joinder together with a Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952, filed contemporaneously
`
`herewith. On January 17, 2018, the Board instituted inter partes review of claims
`
`1–6 and 8–14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952 (“the ’952 Patent”) in Denso
`
`Corporation, Denso International America, Inc., Asmo Co. Ltd., and Toyota Motor
`
`Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case No. IPR2017-01631 (“the Denso
`
`IPR”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Nidec and
`
`Honda request institution of inter partes review for claims 1–6 and 8–14 of the
`
`’952 Patent, and request joinder with the Denso IPR.
`
`Nidec and Honda’s request for joinder is timely, and their Petition is
`
`substantively identical to the Petition in the Denso IPR (Case No. IPR2017-01631
`
`(Paper 1)). The Board instituted on all grounds and claims asserted in IPR2017-
`
`01631. Nidec and Honda propose the same grounds for unpatentability that were
`
`presented in the Denso IPR, based on the same prior art. Joinder will streamline
`
`discovery and briefing, and will allow for efficient review of the ’952 Patent,
`
`without undue burden on the parties to the Denso IPR. As the Board has noted, the
`
`Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder
`
`introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeding.” Samsung Elecs., Co., Ltd., et al. v. Raytheon Co., Case No. IPR2016-
`
`00962, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (Paper 12) (internal quotations and
`
`citations omitted) (emphases in the original).
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Material Facts and Related Proceedings
`
`1.
`
`On March 20, 2017, Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV”) filed a
`
`complaint with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), alleging that Nidec,
`
`Honda, and other parties infringe the ’952 Patent (“the 337-TA-1052
`
`Investigation”). The investigation was instituted on April 28, 2017.
`
`2.
`
`Denso Corporation, Denso International America, Inc., Asmo Co.
`
`Ltd., and Toyota Motor Corporation (together “the Petitioners”) filed a petition
`
`for inter partes review of the ’952 Patent on June 16, 2017 (“the Denso
`
`Petition”), challenging the patentability of claims 1–6 and 8–14 of the ’952
`
`Patent. Denso Corporation, Denso International America, Inc., Asmo Co. Ltd.,
`
`and Toyota Motor Corporation. Case No. IPR2017-01631 (Paper 1).
`
`3.
`
`On September 8, 2017, the ITC granted a motion that terminated the
`
`337-TA-1052 investigation.
`
`4.
`
`On September 5, 2017, IV filed another action at the ITC, again
`
`alleging that Nidec, Honda, and other parties infringe the ‘952 Patent (“the 337-
`
`TA-1073 Investigation”).
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`On January 17, 2018, the Board instituted a trial in the Denso IPR,
`
`on all challenged claims (claims 1–6 and 8–14) in the ‘952 Patent. Case No.
`
`IPR2017-01631 (Paper 11).
`
`III.
`
`Statement of Reasons for Relief Requests
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Board may join as a party to an instituted inter partes review a party
`
`who has properly filed a petition for inter partes review that warrants institution.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). A motion requesting joinder must be filed no later than
`
`one month after the date of institution for the inter partes review to which the party
`
`seeks joinder. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`The Board has explained that a motion for joinder should:
`
`(1) set forth 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.
`
`Samsung Elecs., Case No. IPR2016-00962, slip op. at 5 (citing Kyocera Corp. v.
`
`Softview LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)
`
`(Paper 15)).
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely because it is filed within one month of the
`
`January 17, 2018 institution date of the Denso IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`C. Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder
`
`1.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`
`The Petition is substantively identical to the Denso Petition, presenting the
`
`same grounds of rejection, based on the same evidence and supporting expert
`
`declaration, as in the Denso Petition. Because the Board will be considering the
`
`same issues in the Denso IPR, good cause exists to efficiently resolve all grounds
`
`in a single proceeding. This factor therefore weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`2.
`
`The Petition Presents No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The Petition does not present any new grounds of unpatentability. Further,
`
`the Petition presents the same arguments and supporting evidence presented in the
`
`Denso Petition. This factor weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Denso IPR Trial Schedule
`
`Because the Petition is substantively identical to the Denso Petition, there
`
`are no new issues for IV to address. See Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01353, slip op. at 6 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) (Paper 11) (granting
`
`IPR and motion for joinder where “joinder should not necessitate any additional
`
`briefing or discovery from Patent Owner beyond that already required in [the
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`original IPR].”). Without any new issues presented, there is no reason to delay or
`
`alter the trial schedule already present in the Denso IPR, and Nidec and Honda
`
`consent to the existing trial schedule. Both the previously-filed Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response and the upcoming Patent Owner Response in the Denso IPR
`
`would be unaffected by joinder, because the issues are substantively identical to
`
`the issues of the Denso Petition. See Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Case
`
`No. IPR2017-01631 (Paper 10). IV will not be required to provide any additional
`
`analysis or arguments.
`
`Also, because the Petition relies on the same expert and a substantively
`
`identical declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the proposed joined
`
`proceeding. This factor weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`4.
`
`Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified
`
`Nidec and Honda agree to take an “understudy” role in the joined
`
`proceeding, absent termination of the original petitioners, Denso and Toyota, as
`
`parties to the proceeding. In particular, Nidec and Honda agree that, in the joined
`
`proceeding, the following conditions shall apply so long as the Denso and Toyota
`
`remain active parties, as previously approved by the Board in similar
`
`circumstances:
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`a)
`
`all filings by Nidec and Honda in the joined proceeding be
`
`consolidated with the filings of Denso and Toyota, unless a filing
`
`solely concerns issues that do not involve Denso and Toyota;
`
`b)
`
`Nidec and Honda 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 Denso or Toyota;
`
`c)
`
`Nidec and Honda shall be bound by any agreement between IV,
`
`Denso, and Toyota concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`
`d)
`
`Nidec and Honda, at deposition, shall not receive any direct, cross
`
`examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for Denso and
`
`Toyota in this proceeding alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or by
`
`agreement between IV, Denso, and Toyota.
`
`See Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novartis AG, Case No. IPR2015-00268, slip op. at 5–6
`
`(PTAB Apr. 10, 2015) (Paper 17) (finding that the 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.”).
`
`Nidec and Honda would assume a primary role only if Denso and Toyota
`
`ceased to participate in the proceeding. The Board has consistently found that that
`
`the acceptance of an “understudy” role removes any undue complications or delay
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`that might allegedly result from joinder. See, e.g., Sony Corp., Case No. IPR2015-
`
`01353, slip op. at 7; see also Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Dr. Falk Pharma
`
`GmbH, Case No. IPR2016-01386, slip op. at 6 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2016) (Paper 9).
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`Nidec and Honda respectfully requests that the Board institute Nidec and
`
`Honda’s concurrently filed Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,067,952, and grant joinder with the Denso Corporation, Denso International
`
`America, Inc., Asmo Co. Ltd., and Toyota Motor Corporation v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures II LLC, Case No. IPR2017-01631 proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 15, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/John Flock/
`John Flock
`Registration No. 39,670
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`jflock@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`Lead Counsel for Nidec Corporation
`
`/John Caracappa/
`John Caracappa
`Registration No. 43,532
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036-1795
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: (202) 429-6267
`Fax: (202) 429-3902
`jcaracap@steptoe.com
`Lead Counsel for American Honda Motor
`Co., Inc.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 15, 2018, true and correct
`
`copies of the foregoing MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) TO RELATED INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2017-
`
`01631 was served in its entirety on the following parties via FedEx Express® or
`
`Express Mail:
`
`Knobbe Martes Olson & Bear LLP
`2040 Main Street
`Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`
`With a courtesy copy to the Patent Owner at the purported address according
`
`to the assignment records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office:
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`3150 139th Avenue
`Building 4
`Bellevue, Washington 98005
`
`
`
`Dated: February 15, 2018
`
`
`
`/John Flock/
`John Flock
`Registration No. 39,670
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`jflock@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`Lead Counsel for Nidec Corporation
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
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
