throbber
IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`DOCKET NO.: 2211726-00161US1
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`By:
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`Roshan Mansinghani, Reg. No. 62,429
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`Email: roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Daniel V. Williams, Reg. No. 45,221
`Jonathan E. Robe, Reg. No. 76,033
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE ON REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`Petitioner Unified Patents, Inc. (“Unified”) certified that it is the sole real party-
`
`in-interest (“RPI”). Patent Owner Bradium Technologies LLC (“Bradium”), in its
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response (“POPR”), contests that certification, and in
`
`doing so proposes an incorrect legal standard and relies on speculative attorney
`
`argument. Their challenge should be rejected.
`
`Bradium’s proposed standard—that any member of a for-profit association that
`
`files IPRs that may benefit its members is an RPI—runs contrary to the multi-factor
`
`inquiry required by the Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) and confirmed by the Federal
`
`Circuit. The TPG and recent Federal Circuit precedent make clear the appropriate test
`
`governing an IPR inquiry. And the Board recently addressed this, finding that even
`
`where members were sued for patent infringement—unlike here—they were not RPIs.
`
`See Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-00883, Paper
`
`29, at 16 (Oct. 11, 2018) (institution decision) (currently under seal).
`
`Despite Unified’s voluntary provision of agreed-upon discovery, including its
`
`Membership Agreements and a deposition of Unified’s CEO, Bradium points to no
`
`evidence that anyone other than Unified desired review of the challenged patent or
`
`participated in any way in this IPR. Bradium has not filed a complaint against any
`
`Unified member. No third party other than Microsoft—not a member—would be
`
`time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Bradium speculates this challenge might affect
`
`
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Unified members. But there is no open litigation, no member has been sued, and there
`
`is no evidence of benefit. In contrast, the record evidence demonstrates that Unified
`
`controlled, directed, and funded this petition, did not communicate with any of its
`
`members regarding filing, and that none of Unified’s members have been sued by
`
`Bradium. Unified’s certification is correct.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Determining whether an unnamed party is an RPI “is a highly fact-dependent
`
`question” with no “bright line test,” assessed “case-by-case.” Trial Practice Guide
`
`(“TPG”), 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) (citing Taylor v. Sturgell, 553
`
`U.S. 880 (2008)). The most important factors are whether the third-party funded,
`
`directed, or controlled the IPR. See TPG, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,760 (stating “a party that
`
`funds and directs and controls an IPR . . . petition or proceeding constitutes a [RPI]”);
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (“AIT”) (endorsing the approach in Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter.
`
`Co., IPR2017-01933, Paper 9 (Mar. 16, 2018) (focusing on the indicia of funding,
`
`direction, and control)).
`
`In AIT, the Federal Circuit endorsed the Trial Practice Guide’s RPI analysis and
`
`clarified that it is fact-specific and multi-factored. AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351; see also
`
`Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1246 (stating AIT “clarify[ied] the meaning
`
`of the term ‘real party in interest’ in the context of § 315(b)”); Realtime Adaptive,
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`IPR2018-00883, Paper 29, 11 (citing both AIT and the TPG). The court endorsed the
`
`TPG’s guidance that membership in an association alone does not suffice to render
`
`one an RPI. See AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351. The Federal Circuit remanded because the
`
`Board panel failed
`
`to consider record facts,
`
`including: multiple ongoing
`
`communications between the petitioner and the third party regarding litigation defense
`
`and settlement strategies related to the patent, suspicious payments made just before
`
`the IPR filing, the presence of a time bar for the third party, and the fact that the
`
`petitioner and the third party shared common members on their boards of directors.
`
`See AIT, 897 F.3d at 1340-42. None of those factors are present here.
`
`Bradium does not follow AIT, instead proposing a new standard that would
`
`make any member of a for-profit association an RPI if that association files a challenge
`
`that might benefit a member. See POPR, 5-7. This ignores most of the AIT factors in
`
`favor of a new legal test evaluating only whether there is a pre-existing relationship
`
`with a party that could be benefited by the IPR.
`
`Another Board panel rejected a similar misreading of AIT. In Realtime
`
`Adaptive, IPR2018-00883, Paper 29, 14, the Board held that “the RPI analysis set out
`
`in AIT and the common law require more than simply confining the analysis to
`
`determining whether a party benefits generally from the filing of this Petition and
`
`relationship with the Petitioner.” In finding that Unified’s members were not RPIs,
`
`the Board in Realtime Adaptive found significant that, unlike in AIT, there were no
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`communications with members who were also ongoing litigants, and none were time-
`
`barred.
`
`Bradium’s new test would end where the RPI inquiry begins. See AIT, at 1351;
`
`see also Realtime Adaptive, IPR2018-00883, Paper 29, 15-16 (warning against
`
`“cut[ing] short the RPI analysis set out in AIT”). Under Bradium’s proposal, anyone
`
`sued for patent infringement would become a presumptive RPI in IPR challenges to
`
`the asserted patent filed by anyone with which it has a relationship where it could
`
`benefit from the challenge. Bradium’s approach would mean all buyers, sellers,
`
`subcontractors, subsidiaries, parent corporations, contractual partners, and others with
`
`preexisting relationships, such as members of a joint defense groups would be RPIs to
`
`a challenge by any one of them. The TPG and AIT rejected such a broad approach.
`
`See AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351 (citing TPG, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,760 (trade association or
`
`joint defense group membership does not alone render an entity an RPI)). Bradium’s
`
`approach would hinge on the patent owner’s decision to sue, and would allow patent
`
`owner’s to “create” RPIs. The RPI analysis is deeper than whether a relationship
`
`exists; it must also consider whether the petitioner filed “at the behest” of an unnamed
`
`party. AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351 (citing the TPG, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759).
`
`III. UNIFIED IS THE SOLE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`In the almost 120 challenges before the Patent Office, both before and after AIT,
`
`each time a patent owner has challenged Unified’s RPI certification, the Board has
`
`
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`found that Unified properly certified RPI in an IPR proceeding. See, e.g., Realtime
`
`Adaptive, IPR2018-00883, Paper 29, 19 (finding, after applying AIT, that Unified is
`
`the sole RPI).1 The record evidence provided demonstrates the same is true here.
`
`A. Unified solely directed, funded, and controlled this IPR
`
`Under AIT, Worlds, and subsequent cases, questions of direction, funding, and
`
`control are central to whether a third party is an RPI. See, e.g., AIT, 897 F.3d at 1354;
`
`Worlds, 903 F.3d at 1245; Sirius XM Radio, Inc. v. Fraunhoffer-Gesellschaft Zur
`
`Förderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V., IPR2018-00681, Paper 12, 4 (Sept. 6,
`
`2018); Realtime Adaptive, IPR2018-00883, Paper 29, 11.
`
`No third party directed, funded, or controlled this IPR. Jakel Decl., 3
`
`(“EX2013”); see also EX2004, 149. Rather,
`
`
`
`
`1 A non-exhaustive list of examples include: Clouding IP, IPR2013-00586, Paper 9
`
`(2014); Dragon IP, IPR2014-01252, Paper 37 (2015); iMTX Strategic, IPR2015-
`
`01061, Paper 9 (2015); Hall Data, IPR2015-00874, Paper 11 (2015); TransVideo,
`
`IPR2015-01519, Paper 8 (2016); Qurio, IPR2015-01940, Paper 7 (2016); Nonend,
`
`IPR2016-00174, Paper 10 (2016); Am. Vehicular, IPR2016-00364, Paper 13 (2016);
`
`Plectrum, IPR2017-01430, Paper 8 (2017); Digital Stream IP, IPR2016-01749, Paper
`
`22 (2018); Fall Line, IPR2018-00043, Paper 6 (2018); MONKEYMedia, IPR2018-
`
`00059, Paper 15 (2018); Uniloc, IPR2017-02148, Paper 9 (2018).
`
`
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`. See
`
`Sample Membership Agreement, EX2008, 10-11. No member communicated with
`
`Unified regarding the filing of this IPR, much less directed and controlled Unified’s
`
`filing of this IPR. EX2013, 3. Importantly, none of its members have been served
`
`with a complaint for infringement of this patent, and no member payed Unified to file
`
`this IPR. See EX2004, 145; EX2013, 3.
`
`Rather, Unified operates independently to protect technology zones, not
`
`individual members. EX2004, 153 (“[W]e just don’t do any type of collaboration
`
`around what we should file on and what we shouldn’t . . . our strategy is, instead, to
`
`protect a technology zone”). Unified designates certain technology subject areas
`
`(“Technology Zones” or “Zones”) and directs its work to protecting those Zones from
`
`the threat of poor-quality patents by “independently select[ing] which patents to
`
`challenge based on the perceived deterrent value to a technology zone.” EX2013, 5.
`
`Unified members pay annual zone subscription fees at regular intervals, among other
`
`sources of revenue; Unified alone determines whether and how it spends its money.
`
`See EX2013, 5. No fees are designated for filing challenges, let alone challenges
`
`against a specific patent. See id.
`
`Unified filed this IPR independently, consistent with these long-standing
`
`practices. Unified alone decided to challenge the claims of the ’239 patent, and
`
`
`
` an earlier challenge that was filed,
`
`
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`instituted, and settled by Microsoft (who is not a Unified member). See EX2004, 149;
`
`EX2013, 7-12. The ’239 patent is owned by Bradium, an entity openly related to
`
`General Patent Corporation (“GPC”), a well-known patent assertion entity, and has
`
`long been openly listed on their website. The Board already noted that the ’239 patent
`
`was likely unpatentable,2 and in view of public information about Bradium’s business,
`
`Bradium could assert this patent again. See EX2004, 153. Thus, Unified acted in
`
`accordance with its independent mission to challenge weak patents that are within its
`
`covered Zones and was not driven by the desires of a specific member.
`
`To avoid any doubt, Unified voluntarily provided substantial discovery,
`
`including its Membership Agreements, had its CEO deposed, and searched for
`
`communications with any Unified member regarding the ’239 patent, Bradium, or
`
`GPC prior to institution. There are no such communications. EX2013, 2. Unified
`
`filed the instant petition without insight, input, or direction from any of its members.
`
`See EX2013, 2-5.
`
`B. None of the salient facts in AIT are present here
`
`In AIT, a third-party client of petitioner RPX made substantial payments to RPX
`
`shortly before RPX filed an IPR petition, discussed the patent and related litigation
`
`
`2 See Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Tech. LLC, IPR2016-01897, (P.T.A.B. April 5,
`
`2017), Paper 17, 33-34 (instituting an IPR of the ’239 patent).
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`with RPX, and shared a board member with RPX. See AIT, 897 F.3d at 1340-41. RPX
`
`also discussed and sought to negotiate a settlement or license on behalf of the third-
`
`party, and the third-party was time-barred from filing further challenges. See AIT, 897
`
`F.3d at 1342. Given this, the Federal Circuit determined that the Board did not
`
`appropriately consider all of the RPI factors and remanded for further discovery and
`
`consideration. See id. at 1351.
`
`The facts here are markedly different. There is a clear, independent explanation
`
`for why Unified filed this IPR: the ’239 patent falls squarely within one of Unified’s
`
`Zones, has been asserted by an NPE, and had previously been held, preliminarily, as
`
`likely unpatentable. See EX2013, 6. Neither Google, Apple, or any other member
`
`made Unified aware of the ’239 Patent or even of Bradium and GPC generally, and
`
`none expressed to Unified any interest in the ’239 Patent. See EX2013, 14; EX2004,
`
`134. Unified shares no managers, directors, or any other officer with any of its
`
`members. EX2013, 17.3 Unified never sought to ascertain the desires of any of its
`
`
`3 Contrary to Bradium’s speculation, Unified uses the phrases “tightly aligns”
`
`(EX2020) to indicate that Unified protects Technology Zones in which its members
`
`practice, not to convey that it in any way coordinates IPR challenges (which it does
`
`not). See EX2004, 94-95 (explaining why Unified set up its “zone structure” to enable
`
`it to “work independently”); see also AIT, 897 F.3d at 1357 (noting petitioner’s
`
`
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`members, including Google and Apple, when filing this petition. See EX2004, 97-98
`
`& 152 (“[W]e don’t have conversations with our members about this, who is licensed
`
`. . . .”). Although Bradium speculates that some Unified members “might” be time-
`
`barred from filing their own IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), see POPR, 6-7 & 9,
`
`Bradium has offered no actual evidence showing that any Unified member, including
`
`Google or Apple, is time-barred from filing its own petition challenging the ’239
`
`patent. None are. Only Microsoft has been sued on the challenged patent and
`
`Microsoft is not a Unified member. Thus, there is no litigation involving the
`
`challenged patents, no communications between Unified and a member regarding the
`
`patent, and to Unified’s knowledge, no members had even been threatened with suit.4
`
`There is also no evidence of any time bar under § 315(b), a “crucial” fact in AIT.
`
`
`language that “its interests are 100% aligned with those of [its] clients”) (citation
`
`omitted); Realtime Adaptive, IPR2018-00883, Paper 29, 15 (noting the RPI analysis
`
`must include more than cursory examination of statements about interest alignment).
`
`4 Bradium’s vague suggestion in its POPR and in deposition questioning of Unified’s
`
`CEO, Kevin Jakel, that it may have threatened parties with suit regarding the
`
`challenged patent are the only times Unified has been made aware of the possibility
`
`that such threats might exist. See, e.g., EX2004, 145 (noting Unified was unaware of
`
`whom, if anyone, Bradium has approached for licensing).
`
`
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Realtime Adaptive, IPR2018-0083, Paper 29, 15 (quoting AIT, 897 F.3d at 1353). No
`
`Unified member has filed its own patent challenge to the ’239 patent; none have been
`
`sued by Bradium, or, to the best of Unified’s knowledge at the time it filed the Petition,
`
`even threatened with suit. See POPR, 7 & 9 (identifying only Microsoft as an entity
`
`sued by Bradium and disclosing that Bradium has had “licensing” discussions with
`
`Google and Apple); see also EX2004, 178 (noting no member sent Unified any
`
`demand letters).
`
`C. Bradium’s unsupported speculation does not put RPI at issue
`
`Seeking in vain to align this case with AIT, Bradium speculates about the
`
`relationship between Unified and its members, arguing that Unified members must
`
`benefit from this IPR because they practice in Technology Zones that Unified protects.
`
`POPR, 8. Speculation and attorney argument, however, are insufficient to put RPI at
`
`issue or to overcome the lengthy evidence of record. See Worlds, 903 F.3d at 1244
`
`(“A mere assertion that a third party is an unnamed real party in interest, without any
`
`support for that assertion, is insufficient to put the issue into dispute.”).
`
`Regardless, Bradium’s speculation, even were it properly supported, is
`
`incorrect. Unified files IPR petitions to protect Technology Zones, not individual
`
`members. See EX2004, 94-95. Many companies practicing in a Unified Technology
`
`Zone may be threatened by NPEs, whether Unified members or otherwise. None of
`
`Unified’s members have been sued by Bradium. In the absence of suit, it is unclear
`
`
`
`10
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`whether any entity would benefit from an unpatentability determination of these
`
`particular challenged claims; rather, it is as likely (and speculative) that other members
`
`or other entities could already be licensed, or that this challenge may have frustrated
`
`others’ litigation goals. See EX2004, 152-53 (“[B]ecause we don’t have conversations
`
`with our members about this, who is licensed . . . we don’t have any knowledge of
`
`what their litigation strategy is. . . . [W]e are just as likely to file an IPR with a claim
`
`construction that they don’t like as we are to file a claim construction that they love.”).
`
`Bradium’s “benefit” theory alone is too speculative to support a finding that any other
`
`entity is an RPI, even had they supported it with evidence.
`
`Further, Unified’s members pay their fees once annually. See EX2013, 5.
`
`Unlike in AIT, there is no evidence here of a non-party paying fees suspiciously near
`
`the filing of the IPR. See AIT, 897 F.3d at 1342.
`
`The only record fact proffered by Bradium is that Google and Apple are Unified
`
`members. This is not enough. See Realtime Adaptive, IPR2018-00883, Paper 29, 19
`
`(finding that “the general benefits accruing from such membership” are insufficient
`
`“under the principles espoused by AIT and the common law to require that all [Unified]
`
`members be identified as RPIs under § 312(a)(2)”). Bradium’s improper test and
`
`speculation do not suffice to raise the issue of RPI, much less to defeat the burden of
`
`persuasion to overcome the evidence voluntarily offered by Unified. See Worlds, 903
`
`F.3d at 1242 (“[A] patent owner must produce some evidence to support its argument
`
`
`
`11
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`that a particular third party should be named a [RPI].”).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Unified has an independent, well-recognized goal of challenging poor-quality
`
`patents in its covered Technology Zones, and has clearly, thoroughly, and
`
`transparently maintained a business model to prevent control or direction by its
`
`members. Here, it has used its judgment and in-house resources to challenge a patent
`
`already found, preliminarily, to be reasonably likely to be held unpatentable. In
`
`recognition of AIT, Unified provided voluntary discovery, including a deposition of
`
`Unified’s CEO and founder, Kevin Jakel. Despite all of this, Bradium cannot point to
`
`any non-speculative evidence supporting that there is another RPI. Its conclusory
`
`attorney arguments do not suffice to show that either Google or Apple is an RPI here.
`
`Bradium’s RPI challenge to the RPI certification should be rejected.
`
`Dated: November 7, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/ David L. Cavanaugh/
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Registration No. 72,518
`
`Roshan Mansinghani
`Registration No. 62,429
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No. 36,476
`
`
`
`12
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 7, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing materials:
`
`• PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY
`
`RESPONSE ON REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`to be served upon the following by ELECTRONIC MAIL:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chris J. Coulson
`Email ccoulson@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael N. Zachary
`Email mzachary@bdiplaw.com
`
`Lauren N. Robinson
`Email lrobinson@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael E. Shanahan
`Email: mshanahan@generalpatent.com
`
`/ Jonathan E Robe /
`Jonathan Robe
`Registration No. 76,033
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
`and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`
`
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 6, 2020 a copy of the foregoing
`
`REDACTED PEITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE ON REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`(PAPER NO. 25) was served via electronic mail, as agreed to by counsel, upon
`
`the following counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`Chris J. Coulson
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`101 Brambach Rd.
`Scarsdale, NY 10583
`Email:ccoulson@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael N. Zachary
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`701 El Camino Real
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Email: mzachary@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael E. Shanahan
`Email: mshanahan@generalpatent.com
`
`/Ashley F. Cheung/
`Ashley F. Cheung
` Paralegal
` Unified Patents, LLC
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket