`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`____________________
`
`OPPOSTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER TO INTER
`PARTES REVIEW IPR2018-01258
`
`GOOGLE 1014
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`II. STANDARD ...................................................................................................... 3
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3
`1. Joinder Would Prejudice Patent Owner ..................................................... 3
`2. Joinder Would Impact the Trial Schedule .................................................. 6
`a. Joinder Would Introduce New Claim Construction Issues ................... 7
`b. Joinder Would Require Additional Discovery as to RPIs .................... 10
`3. Joinder Would Waste Time, Effort, and Resources ................................ 11
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Applications in Internet Time v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir., July 9,
`2019) ............................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`CyWee Group Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd. et al.
`
`C.A. No. 2:17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex.) ..................................................... passim
`
`Famy Care Ltd. v. Allergan, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-00566 (PTAB July 12, 2017) .......................................................... 5
`
`Google LLC v. CyWee Group Ltd.,
`
`IPR2018-01258 ............................................................................................... 1
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview, LLC,
`
`Case IPR2013-00004 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) ................................................. 3
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal,
`
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Dyk, J. and Wallach, J. concurring) ........... 7
`
`Proppant Express Investments LLC, et al., v. Oren Tech., LLC,
`
`IPR2018-00914, Paper 21 at 5 (PTAB Nov. 8, 2018) .................................... 7
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Tech., LLC, et al.,
`
`IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at 2-3 (PTAB July 24, 2014) .................. 3, 5, 7, 11
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 CFR § 42.122 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) ............. 3, 4
`
` ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner” or “Samsung”) has filed a
`
`petition against CyWee Group Ltd. (“CyWee” or “Patent Owner”) for inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (the “‘438 Patent”) concurrently with a
`
`Motion for Joinder (the “Motion”) with Google LLC v. CyWee Group Ltd.,
`
`IPR2018-01258 (the “Google IPR”). The Google IPR was instituted on December
`
`11, 2018, challenging claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the ‘438 Patent.
`
`Samsung is one of four parties now seeking joinder with the Google IPR.
`
`The other parties are LG Electronics Inc. (“LG”); ZTE (USA), Inc. (“ZTE”); and
`
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al. (“Huawei”). All of these parties are also parties to
`
`infringement actions before various district courts involving the ‘438 Patent.
`
`Petition, Paper 1 at 2. Samsung has challenged the validity of the ‘438 Patent in
`
`CyWee Group Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd. et al. C.A. No. 2:17-cv-00140 (E.D.
`
`Tex.) (the “District Court Action”).
`
`The District Court Action was filed on February 17, 2017. District Court
`
`Action, Complaint, Doc. 1. Samsung is nearly a full year past the deadline for
`
`which it could have filed a petition for its own IPR pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.101(b). During the two years since Samsung was first served with the complaint
`
`in the District Court Action, Samsung has not indicated any interest in challenging
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`the validity of the ‘438 Patent by IPR, opting instead to pursue an invalidity
`
`defense in the District Court Action. The District Court Action has progressed
`
`considerably. A claim construction order issued in the District Court Action on
`
`July 9, 2018. Id., Claim Construction Order, Doc. 117. That claim construction
`
`favored CyWee and has been repeatedly upheld despite two requests for
`
`reconsideration by Samsung, one of which was based upon issues raised in the
`
`Google IPR. Fact discovery has concluded in the District Court Action, as has
`
`expert discovery for validity and infringement. Case dispositive motions and
`
`motions to strike expert opinions were filed on February 6, 2019, and a trial date
`
`has been set for May 2019. Samsung now seeks to stay the District Court Action—
`
`and subvert the claim construction order there—by joining the Google IPR.
`
`CyWee has opposed Samsung’s motion to stay the District Court Action.
`
`Moreover, although Samsung originally asserted Bachmann, a key reference in the
`
`Google IPRs, it dropped that reference from its invalidity contentions and did not
`
`raise it in any of its expert reports on invalidity. Samsung should not be permitted
`
`to resurrect its long-abandoned reliance on Bachmann through joinder here.
`
`Allowing joinder here will severely prejudice the Patent Owner; will
`
`introduce new issues requiring additional discovery; will impact the schedule of
`
`this proceeding and related proceedings; and will waste the time, effort, and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`resources of the Board, the parties, and the federal district courts. Accordingly,
`
`Samsung’s Motion must be denied.
`
`II. STANDARD
`
`The Board’s decision to grant joinder is discretionary. Unified Patents, Inc.
`
`v. PersonalWeb Tech., LLC, et al., IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at 2-3 (PTAB July
`
`24, 2014); 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 CFR § 42.122. This discretionary determination
`
`is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the particular facts of each
`
`case, substantive and procedural issues, and other considerations. Unified Patents,
`
`IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at 3. When determining whether to grant a motion for
`
`joinder, the Board considers many factors including the timing and impact of
`
`joinder on the trial schedule, cost, discovery issues, potential simplification of
`
`briefing, and claim construction issues. Id. at 3 (citing Kyocera Corp. v. Softview,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl)).
`
`The moving party has the burden of establishing that it is entitled to joinder.
`
`Unified Patents, IPR2014-000702, Paper 12 at 3. Even where two parties file
`
`nearly identical petitions in separate proceedings, joinder is not granted “as a
`
`matter of right,” if the movant fails to meet its burden. Id. at 4.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`
`1. Joinder Would Prejudice Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`In a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision to institute the
`
`Google IPR, Patent Owner warned of a coordinated attack on the ‘438 Patent by a
`
`group of major technology companies. Google IPR, Paper 10 at 2-3. Now, Patent
`
`Owner’s warnings are fully realized. Samsung, Huawei, LG, and ZTE all seek to
`
`join the Google IPR to use their substantial combined resources to bully the
`
`smaller CyWee. This synchronized effort by petitioners is highly prejudicial to
`
`Patent Owner for multiple reasons.
`
`First, this type of mass joinder petitioning was one of Congress’ concerns in
`
`codifying 35 U.S.C. § 315. Congress granted the Director—and through him, the
`
`Board—discretion “over whether to allow joinder [as a] safety valve [to] allow the
`
`Office to avoid being overwhelmed if there happens to be a deluge of joinder
`
`petitions in a particular case.” Unified Patents, IPR2014-000702, Paper 12 at 4
`
`(quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl)).
`
`Samsung’s Motion is one in just such a “deluge of joinder petitions.” Four joinder
`
`petitions have been filed in relation to the Google IPR.1 A flood of joinder petitions
`
`of this kind prejudices Patent Owner, as it must now face the combined resources
`
`and efforts of all of the petitioners. Abusive, serial joinder also places stress on the
`
`Board to determine whether each individual joinder is appropriate on a case-by-
`
`1 The related matter of Google LLC v. CyWee Group Ltd., IPR2018-01257,
`challenging related U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978, also received four joinder petitions
`from the same four parties: Samsung, Huawei, LG, and ZTE. In sum, between the
`two related IPRs, Patent Owner and the Board face eight joinder petitions.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`case basis, wasting resources and potentially extending the trial schedule while the
`
`determinations are made.
`
`Second, joinder is only appropriate where the party seeking joinder agrees to
`
`take a “silent understudy” role. Famy Care Ltd. v. Allergan, Inc., IPR2017-00566,
`
`Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB July 12, 2017). Samsung has alleged that it will “act as an
`
`‘understudy’ and will not assume an active role.” Motion, Paper 3 at 2. However, it
`
`is unfathomable that Samsung, Huawei, LG, and ZTE—all major technology
`
`companies who are defendants in district court litigation with significant interest in
`
`the outcome of the Google IPR—will truly take an “understudy” role. Rather, the
`
`facts indicate that the petitioners will be and have been actively working in tandem
`
`to defeat CyWee’s claims. Google is a known ring-leader in organizing major
`
`companies in coordinated efforts to overwhelm smaller patent owners. See, e.g.,
`
`Unified Patents, IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at Part II(2), pp. 4-6. And all of the
`
`parties seeking joinder are mobile device manufacturers that use Google’s Android
`
`operating system, which is a foundational component of CyWee’s district court
`
`cases against those parties. Samsung showed no interest whatsoever in pursuing
`
`inter partes review against CyWee until CyWee noted that lack of interest in its
`
`request for reconsideration in the Google IPR. Google IPR, Paper 10 at 2-3. Now,
`
`in seeking joinder, it is telling that large sections of each of the new petitioners’
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`briefs for their motions to join appear to be copy-pasted from one another and
`
`contain nearly identical language with only minor modifications.
`
`Taken together, these facts indicate that Samsung and the other parties
`
`seeking joinder have already been working together and will certainly continue
`
`working together, taking active roles in the Google IPR. Moreover, as will be
`
`discussed below, additional discovery will be necessary to determine the extent of
`
`the relationship between the petitioners and to discover whether other third parties
`
`that also use the Android operating system that are not currently seeking to join the
`
`Google IPR are Real Parties in Interest (RPI) to its outcome. See Applications in
`
`Internet Time v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1357 (Fed. Cir., July 9, 2019) (“[A]n
`
`agent with an ownership interest in the subject mater of the suit... or a party in
`
`whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, may qualify as a
`
`real party in interest... Depending on the nature of the parties’ relationship, an
`
`entity can serve as an agent to a principal and file an IPR on the principal’s behalf
`
`even without the two formally agreeing that the agent will do so.” (internal
`
`citations omitted)).
`
`2. Joinder Would Impact The Trial Schedule
`
`Samsung contends that its “proposed joinder will neither unduly complicate
`
`the Google IPR nor delay its schedule.” Motion, Paper 3 at 2. Samsung’s joinder,
`
`however would introduce new issues, including at least claim construction issues
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`and questions regarding RPI, which would require additional discovery.
`
`Additionally, the Google IPR is not a single case with no other pending related
`
`IPRs. IPR2018-01257 was also filed by Google on June 14, 2018, and currently is
`
`on the same schedule as IPR2018-01258. IPR2018-01257 concerns U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,552,978 (the “‘978 Patent”), which descends from the ‘438 Patent. Samsung,
`
`Huawei, LG, and ZTE all seek joinder in that IPR as well. IPR2019-00143 also
`
`concerns the ‘438 Patent and was filed by ZTE on October 31, 2018. Samsung has
`
`made no effort to address the impact of its joinder on the schedule of these related
`
`IPRs and therefore has failed to meet its burden to show that it is entitled to
`
`joinder. Unified Patents, IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at 6-7.
`
`a. Joinder Would Introduce New Claim Construction Issues
`
`The Board has held, and the Federal Circuit has stated, that Congress did not
`
`intend “that petitioners could employ the joinder provision to circumvent the time
`
`bar by adding time-barred issues to an otherwise timely proceeding, whether the
`
`petitioner seeking to add new issues is the sane party that brought the timely
`
`proceeding... or... a new party.” Proppant Express Investments LLC, et al., v. Oren
`
`Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00914, Paper 21 at 5 (PTAB Nov. 8, 2018) (quoting Nidec
`
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1020
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (Dyk, J. and Wallach, J. concurring)). While Samsung claims that
`
`it “presents no new issues” to the Google IPR, Motion, Paper 3 at 5, this is untrue.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`Although Samsung does not present any new grounds of unpatentability, its joinder
`
`to the Google IPR presents a new issue based solely on the timing of the Samsung
`
`petition. Because Samsung’s petition and Motion were filed after November 13,
`
`2018, they should be subject to claim construction under the Phillips standard.
`
`However, the Google IPR, filed before November 13, 2018, was subject to claim
`
`construction under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (“BRI”) standard.
`
`Because the claim construction standard applied to IPRs shifted between the time
`
`that the Google IPR was filed and the time that Samsung’s petition and Motion
`
`were filed, the Board will need to address the new issue of which claim
`
`construction standard would apply if Samsung were to join.
`
`Samsung attempts to circumvent this issue in its Motion by submitting itself
`
`to the BRI standard, the standard typically more favorable to parties challenging
`
`the validity of a patent. Motion, Paper 3 at Part IV, pp. 8-9. This is inappropriate.
`
`Samsung’s joinder is little more than an effort to bypass the claim construction
`
`order of the District Court Action. Samsung’s petition filed after November 13,
`
`2018, if allowed to join, is subject to the Phillips standard.
`
`Magistrate Judge Payne of the Eastern District of Texas issued a claim
`
`construction order that favored CyWee’s interpretations of several key claim terms.
`
`District Court Action, Doc. 117. Those constructions have been confirmed twice,
`
`despite Samsung’s repeated objections, by Judge Bryson, a Federal Circuit judge
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`sitting by designation. District Court Action, Docs. 153, 242 (affirming
`
`constructions). Samsung has already tried to abuse the discrepancy between the
`
`BRI and Phillips standard to its advantage. After the Board issued its institution
`
`decision in the Google IPR, which provided constructions for important claim
`
`terms such as “3D pointing device,” Samsung requested reconsideration of the
`
`district court claim construction based on slight discrepancies between the claim
`
`construction in the Google IPR institution decision with that of the District Court
`
`Action. District Court Action, Reconsideration Request, Doc. 179. Judge Bryson
`
`denied that request (Doc. 242), and it is clear that Samsung is now once again
`
`attempting to exploit the Google IPR to sidestep the adverse district court claim
`
`construction. Samsung should not be allowed to misuse the IPR system in this way,
`
`and so its Motion should be denied on this ground. At the very least, however, the
`
`new issue of which claim construction standard to apply to Samsung’s petition and
`
`joinder also weigh in favor of denying its Motion.
`
`It is also worth noting that Samsung had, early in the District Court Action,
`
`identified Bachmann—a key reference at issue in the Google IPR—as prior art, but
`
`later dropped Bachmann from its invalidity contentions altogether. By seeking
`
`joinder with the Google IPR, Samsung wishes to obtain a second chance at
`
`asserting art that it concluded was irrelevant to its invalidity claims and completely
`
`abandoned in the district court. Just as Samsung seeks to game the IPR system by
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`obtaining claim construction under BRI, it again seeks to play the system to its
`
`advantage to reintroduce previously abandoned grounds for invalidity under a
`
`different claim construction standard. It should not be permitted to do so.
`
`b. Joinder Would Require Additional Discovery as to RPIs
`
`Samsung’s joinder to this case also raises new questions regarding RPIs. As
`
`discussed above, taken as a whole, the facts indicate that the petitioners seeking
`
`joinder to the Google IPR are working together. Allowing joinder will create the
`
`need for CyWee to engage in discovery regarding the precise nature of the
`
`relationship between the petitioners and the extent to which they will truly be
`
`acting as “silent understudies” to Google in the Google IPR.
`
`Similarly, the fact that Samsung, Huawei, LG, and ZTE all utilize the
`
`Google Android operating system on their devices that are at issue at district court
`
`raises the question of whether other undisclosed third parties are RPIs having a
`
`stake in the outcome of the Google IPR. For instance, Motorola and HTC are also
`
`parties to district court infringement actions and use Google’s Android operating
`
`system on their infringing devices. The Motorola action has been stayed pending
`
`the outcome of the Google IPR, so it is clear that at least Motorola has an interest
`
`in the outcome of this proceeding. The lawsuit against HTC has not been stayed
`
`pending the outcome of the Google IPR, but this is because there are a number of
`
`additional claims asserted that are not patent claims. Joinder by any one of
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`Samsung, Huawei, LG, or ZTE will necessitate additional discovery to determine
`
`what other unknown makers of Android-based devices are RPIs to the Google IPR.
`
`Because additional discovery will be required, which could also lead to
`
`shifts in the trial schedule, Samsung’s Motion should be denied.
`
`3. Joinder Would Waste Time, Effort, and Resources
`
`Allowing Samsung’s motion for joinder would be a waste of time, effort,
`
`and resources for the Board, the parties, and the district court. As mentioned above,
`
`the District Court Action has progressed substantially to the point that fact
`
`discovery has concluded, as has expert discovery as to the issues of validity and
`
`infringement. The deadline for case dispositive motions has recently passed, and
`
`both CyWee and Samsung have moved for summary judgment and filed motions
`
`to strike expert opinions. Trial has been set for May 2019. It would be less costly
`
`and time consuming to allow the District Court Action to resolve. Because claims
`
`1, 3, 4, and 5 of the ‘438 Patent at issue in the Google IPR are also at issue in the
`
`District Court Action, the outcome of that case could render moot the need to reach
`
`a final written decision on the patentability of those claims here. See Unified
`
`Patents, IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at 8 (where resolution of a pending Fed. Cir.
`
`case would have potentially rendered moot the need for a final written decision
`
`regarding patentability of claims at issue in petitioner’s motion for joinder).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00535
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`The District Court Action is sure to resolve more quickly than the Google
`
`IPR. The Google IPR was instituted on December 11, 2018, and a final written
`
`decision will be issued by December 11, 2019, as required by 35 U.S.C
`
`§316(a)(11). The District Court Action will likely be resolved by the May 2019
`
`trial date and perhaps even sooner by summary judgment or settlement. Thus,
`
`allowing Samsung to join the Google IPR and stay the District Court Action could
`
`result in a seven-month delay in reaching a resolution between CyWee and
`
`Samsung. Furthermore, it would be a waste of resources to effectively restart
`
`litigation on the issue of invalidity that has already progressed to a significant
`
`degree in the District Court Action.
`
`Because Allowing Samsung’s Motion would result in a waste of time, effort,
`
`and resources, the Motion should be denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Because the particular facts of this case, the substantive and procedural
`
`issues, and other considerations weigh in favor of denying Samsung’s Motion,
`
`joinder should be denied.
`
`Dated: February 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan/
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`CyWee Group Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the date
`
`indicated below, a complete and entire copy of this submission was electronically
`
`served to Petitioner’s counsel at the email address of record:
`
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Chetan Bansal (Limited Recognition No. L0667)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th St. NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 551-1700
`Fax: (202) 551-1705
`PH-Samsung-Cywee-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan/
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`CyWee Group Ltd.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`