`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
` 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................... 1, 2
`
`Lumenthum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
` IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 (Mar. 4, 2016) ............................................................. 1
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
` IPR2018-01108 ................................................................................................. 2, 3
`
`Ventex Co., Ltd., v. Columbia Sportswear N.A., Inc.,
` IPR2017-00651 (Jan. 24, 2019) .................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Gary L. Blank [WITHDRAWN]
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gary L. Blank CV [WITHDRAWN]
`
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order (Doc. 117), Cywee
`Group Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 2:17-CV-
`00140-WCB-RSP (E.D. Tex., July 9, 2018)
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D., in Support
`of Patent Owner Response
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D.
`
`Order (Doc. 153), Cywee Group Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Ltd., C.A. No. 2:17-CV-00140-WCB-RSP (E.D. Tex., Aug.
`14, 2018)
`
`Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 55), CyWee Group Ltd. v.
`Motorola Mobility LLC, C.A. No. 17-780-RGA (D. Del.,
`Dec. 21, 2018)
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 10/396,439
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 12/413,722
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 13/367,058
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D., in Support
`of Motion to Amend
`
`File History of U.S. Provisional Application 61/292558
`
`Google’s Responses to CyWee’s Requests for Production,
`CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00571 (D.
`Del.) (Sep. 4, 2018)
`
` ii
`
`
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`Google/Samsung 2011-2012 Mobile Application Distribution
`Agreement (Android)
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`CyWee Group, Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., C.A. No.
`2:17-CV-00140-WCB-RSP, Doc. 1-1 (Exhibit A,
`Infringement Claim Chart)
`
`Web Print-Out “Introducing PAX: the Android Networked
`Cross-License Agreement,” available at
`<https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-
`policy/introducing-pax-android-networked-cross-license-
`agreement/>
`
`
` iii
`
`
`
`FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH § 315(b) IS JURISDICTIONAL
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`In its Opposition (“Opp.”), Petitioner demonstrates a total misunderstanding
`
`I.
`
`
`of the legal issues raised by Patent Owner’s Motion and ultimately only
`
`demonstrates why the requested discovery is warranted. First, Petitioner argues
`
`that discovery should be denied because “RPI issues are ‘not jurisdictional,’” citing
`
`Lumenthum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38
`
`(Mar. 4, 2016). Opp. at 1-2 n.1. But Lumenthum involved only § 312(a), not the §
`
`315(b) time bar. The Federal Circuit has cautioned that it is error to conflate §
`
`312(a) with § 315(b) because they are separate and distinct inquiries with separate
`
`and distinct consequences. Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897
`
`F.3d 1336, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Reyna, concurring). Ventex was designated as
`
`precedential because it applies the Federal Circuit’s rule from AIT, and makes clear
`
`that where an RPI/privity issue implicates § 315(b), the RPI/privity issue is non-
`
`waivable and the time bar is jurisdictional. Ventex Co., Ltd., v. Columbia
`
`Sportswear N.A., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 2-4 (Jan. 24, 2019).
`
`The remainder of Petitioner’s timeliness argument, see Opp. at 2-6, is mere
`
`ipse dixit. Petitioner baldly asserts that there is “no exclusive relationship” because
`
`Petitioner supplies its Android platform to multiple parties and that Patent Owner
`
`“alleges that multiple parties should be RPIs.” Id. at 4. First, an exclusive
`
`relationship is not required, only that Petitioner and the unnamed parties have a
`
` 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`“specifically structured, preexisting, and well established business relationship
`
`with one another.” Ventex, Paper 148 at 10. As the very cases cited by Petitioner
`
`demonstrate, Patent Owner is entitled to discovery regarding the true nature of the
`
`relationship between Petitioner and other unidentified parties. See, e.g., Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2018-01108, Papers 9 and 13.
`
`Petitioner then challenges Patent Owner’s timeliness by citing to CyWee’s
`
`prior requests in the district court regarding the Google-Samsung relationship.
`
`Opp. at 5. Tellingly, Petitioner avoids disclosing that it refused to produce the
`
`information, Ex. 2013, RFP Responses 3-5, that the case was stayed before CyWee
`
`could move to compel, and that the information would have been subject to the
`
`protective order in that case and thus could not be disclosed here. All this shows
`
`then is that Petitioner has been on notice for months of the requested information
`
`and is therefore not prejudiced by having to assemble and produce it now.
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s assertion that “the designation of Ventex as precedential
`
`did not change the relevant law,” Opp. at 2, is inconsistent with the Office’s
`
`principles and practices. AIT involved a very specific set of facts as between a non-
`
`practicing “patent risk management” entity and one of its clients. See generally,
`
`AIT, 897 F.3d 1336. It was unclear from those facts how the Board would apply
`
`AIT’s standard as between two practicing entities in a supplier-OEM relationship.
`
`Ventex settled that issue. Denying additional discovery here on a jurisdictional
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`issue months before the oral hearing is scheduled cannot be justified when under
`
`the precedent of Ventex, discovery was allowed on similar facts after oral hearing.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S GARMIN FACTORS ANALYSIS LACKS MERIT
`
`Petitioner’s position regarding the Garmin factors is equally unavailing.
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Opp. at 6-7, Patent Owner proposed categories
`
`for discovery in its Motion, not specific requests. And, as noted above, Petitioner is
`
`already on notice regarding what Patent Owner is requesting. Petitioner’s self-
`
`serving claim that nothing “useful” will be discovered, id. at 7, is entitled to no
`
`weight. The lengths to which Petitioner has gone to avoid producing information
`
`about the true nature of its relationships with the unnamed parties is itself prima
`
`facie evidence that belies any such claim. RPI/privity is a case-by-case inquiry, so
`
`the relationships must be examined based on the specific facts of this IPR. Ventex,
`
`Paper 148 at 6. Even in Seven Networks, on which Petitioner relies, the Board
`
`authorized discovery. Seven Networks, IPR2018-01108, Paper 9, 13. While the
`
`Board ultimately found that Google was not RPI/privy to Samsung based on the
`
`facts of that IPR, that does not preclude a finding that Samsung is an RPI/privy to
`
`this IPR. The Board can only make a fully informed decision regarding Google’s
`
`relationship with the unnamed parties after all relevant evidence has been produced
`
`and the issue has been briefed as it was in Seven Networks and in Ventex.
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion should therefore be granted.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan/
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`
`Dated: June 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the date
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`indicated below, a complete and entire copy of this submission, including the
`
`exhibits hereto, was provided by email to Petitioner’s counsel via email, as agreed
`
`to by Petitioner’s Service Information in the Petition submission, by serving the
`
`email address of record as follows:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`110 Alma St., Ste 109
`Menlo Park, CA
`(202) 669-6207
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`
`Andrew S. Baluch
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`110 Alma St., Ste 109
`Menlo Park, CA
`(847) 863-1645
`baluch@smithbaluch.com
`
`Christopher M. Colice
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`110 Alma St., Ste 109
`Menlo Park, CA
`(617) 947.7280
`colice@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan/
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`