UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OYSTER OPTICS, LLC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 6,476,952
`_____________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OYSTER OPTICS, LLC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 6,476,952
`_____________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Nokia of America Corporation (“Nokia” or “Petitioner”) submits this motion
`
`for joinder of the concurrently filed petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,476,952 (“the ’952 patent”) filed on April 27, 2018 (the “Petition”). Nokia’s
`
`Petition is based on grounds identical to those that form the basis for the instituted
`
`inter partes reviews initiated by Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. concerning the
`
`same patent, Case No. IPR2017-02190 (the “Original ’952 IPR”).
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that its Petition be instituted and moves that
`
`the Petition be joined with the Original ’952 IPR pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b). Petitioner requests an opportunity to join with
`
`the Original ’952 IPR as an “understudy” to Cisco and Oclaro. Petitioner does not
`
`seek to alter the grounds upon which the Board instituted the Original ’952 IPR, and
`
`joinder will have no impact on the Orignal ’952 IPR’s existing schedule, and as such
`
`there will be no prejudice to Patent Owner Oyster Optics, LLC (“Oyster” or “Patent
`
`Owner”).
`
`This motion is timely as the Cisco ’952 IPR petition was instituted on March
`
`28, 2018 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
`
`The ‘952 Patent is subject to a pending lawsuit entitled Oyster Optics, LLC v.
`
`Nokia Corporation et al, Case No. 2:16-cv-01297-JRG (E.D. Tex.) in which
`
`Petitioner is a defendant. The ‘952 Patent is also subject to other lawsuits, including
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corporation, Case No. 3-17-cv-05920 (N.D. Cal.);
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corporation et al, Case No. 2-16-cv-01300 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`(dismissed on 8/4/2017); Oyster Optics, LLC v. Coriant America Inc. et al, Case No.
`
`2-16-cv-01302 (E.D. Tex.); Oyster Optics, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et
`
`al, Case No. 2-16-cv-01303 (E.D. Tex.); Oyster Optics, LLC v.
`
`Infinera
`
`Corporation, Case No. 2-16-cv-01295 (E.D. Tex.); Oyster Optics, LLC v. NEC
`
`Corporation et al, Case No. 2-16-cv-01296 (E.D. Tex.) (dismissed on 8/30/2017);
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al, Case No. 2-16-cv-01301 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al, Case No. 2-16-cv-01298 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`(dismissed on 3/10/2017); Oyster Optics, Inc. v. Fujitsu Network Communications,
`
`Inc et al, Case No. 1-08-cv-08206 (S.D.N.Y.) (dismissed 6/30/2009). On May 18,
`
`2017, Case Nos. 2:16-cv-01302-JRG (lead case), 2:16-cv-01297-JRG and 2:16-cv-
`
`01301-JRG were consolidated for all pre-trial issues.
`
`Petitions for IPR have been filed against other patents held by Patent Owner,
`
`including IPR2017-02173 and IPR2018-00259 against U.S. Patent No. 7,620,327;
`
`IPR2018-00070 and IPR2018-00257 against U.S. Patent 8,913,898; IPR2018-00146
`
`2
`
`
`
`against U.S. Patent No. 9,363,012; and IPR2018-00258 against U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,099,592. Petitioner is also filing a second petition against the ’952 Patent, and
`
`seeking to join IPR2017-2189 filed by Cisco and Oclaro against the ’952 Patent.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD AND APPLICABLE RULES
`
`An inter partes review may be joined with another inter partes
`
`review, subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which governs joinder of
`
`inter partes review proceedings:
`
`(c) 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).
`
`Petitioner submits the factors outlined below in support of granting the present
`
`Motion for Joinder.
`
`3
`
`
`
`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 ’952 patent without prejudice to the
`
`parties to the Original ‘952 IPR; (2) Petitioner’s petition raises the same grounds for
`
`unpatentability as the Original ‘952 IPR petition and is based on the same testimony
`
`from the same technical expert; (3) joinder would not affect the expected schedule
`
`in the Original ‘952 IPR nor would it increase the complexity of that proceeding;
`
`and (4) Petitioner is willing to accept an understudy role in the Original ’952 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 ’952
`Patent’s Validity and Will Not Prejudice Oyster
`Granting joinder and allowing Petitioner to assume an understudy role will
`
`not prejudice the parties or burden the Board. The Petition does not raise any issues
`
`that are not already before the Board in the Original ‘952 IPR and thus the Board
`
`would receive consolidated filings for the joined IPRs instead of redundant
`
`submissions in separate IPRs. Likewise, Oyster would only need to respond to a
`
`single set of filings to which it would already be obligated to respond. The Board
`
`4
`
`
`
`has granted 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 Original ’952
`IPR, Which Has Been Instituted
`The Petition asserts only grounds on which the Board has already determined
`
`to grant institution in the Original ’952 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.
`
`Joinder Will Not Affect the Schedule of the Original ’952 IPR
`C.
`Because Petitioner filed its pending IPR and corresponding motion for joinder
`
`timely after the institution decision on the Original ’952 IPR and is willing to accept
`
`the existing schedule, allowing Petitioner to join the Original ’952 IPR will not
`
`impact the scheduling order for the Original ’952 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 Original ’952 IPR, and Petitioner
`
`explicitly consents to the existing trial schedule.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Moreover, Petitioner submits that Oyster 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 Original ’952 IPR, there are no new
`
`arguments for Oyster to address. Alternatively, Petitioner requests that the Board
`
`accelerate the deadline for Oyster’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
`
`Original ’952 IPR schedule.
`
`Petitioner Agrees to Assume a Limited Role
`D.
`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 Cisco and Oclaro remain
`
`active parties, as previously approved by the Board in similar circumstances:
`
`(a) all filings by Petitioner in the joined proceeding be consolidated
`with the filings of Cisco and Oclaro, unless a filing solely concerns
`issues that do not involve Cisco or Oclaro;
`
`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 Cisco or Oclaro;
`(c) Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner
`and Cisco or Oclaro concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`(d) Petitioner at deposition shall not
`receive any direct, cross
`examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for Cisco or Oclaro
`in this proceeding alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any
`agreement between Patent Owner and Cisco or Oclaro.
`
`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.”). Petitioner’s understudy role would only be
`
`reassessed if Cisco or Oclaro ceased to participate in the proceeding.
`
`The invalidity grounds in the Petition are the same as those instituted in the
`
`Original ’952 IPR. Petitioner relies on the same expert testimony presented in the
`
`Original ’952 IPR. Given that Petitioner will assume an understudy role to Cisco
`
`and Oclaro, joinder with this IPR proceeding will not introduce any additional
`
`arguments, briefing, or need for discovery. See Sony Corp. of America, et al. v.
`
`Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., Case No. IPR2013-00495 (Paper 13) (“We
`
`further conclude that Petitioners have demonstrated that joinder is warranted under
`
`7
`
`
`
`the circumstances. Petitioners will be joined to Case IPR2013-00071 in a limited
`
`role. If at some point Case IPR2013-00071 is terminated with respect to either of the
`
`existing parties Avaya and Dell (or both), the role of any remaining party or parties
`
`in the proceeding will be reevaluated.”).
`
`As long as Cisco and Oclaro remain in the joined IPR, Petitioner agrees to
`
`assume a limited “understudy” role. Petitioner would only request a more active
`
`role if Cisco or Oclaro 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 ’952 patent be granted and that the proceedings be joined
`
`with IPR2017-02190.
`
`Date: April 27, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/S. Benjamin Pleune/
`S. Benjamin Pleune, Reg. No. 52,421
`Scott Stevens, Reg. No. 54,762
`Chris Ziegler, Reg. No. 71,676
`Alston & Bird LLP
`101 South Tryon Street
`Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
`704.444.1000
`
`John D. Haynes, Reg. No. 44,754
`One Atlantic Center
`
`8
`
`
`
`1201 West Peachtree Street
`Suite 4900
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
`404.881.7000
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105, the undersigned certifies
`
`that on the 27th day of April, 2018, a complete and entire copy of this Motion for
`
`Joinder was provided via Federal Express, postage prepaid, to the Patent Owner and
`
`its known representatives by serving the correspondence address of record for the
`
`‘952 Patent holder and the patent holder’s counsel:
`
`Jackson Walker L.L.P.
`Attn: Intellectual Property Department
`100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`The undersigned further certifies that a courtesy copy of the complete and
`
`entire Petition was provided by electronic service to counsel retained by Patent
`
`Owner in the Related PTAB Matters identified herein:
`
`Wayne M. Helge whelge@dbjg.com
`James T. Wilson jwilson@dbjg.com
`Aldo Noto anoto@dbjg.com
`
`Dated: April 27, 2018
`
`/ S. Benjamin Pleune /
`S. Benjamin Pleune, Reg. No. 52,421
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`9
`
`
`
`1010
`
`
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
