Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLING TV L.L.C., SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,867,535
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`IPR AS TIME-BARRED UNDER § 315(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLING TV L.L.C., SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,867,535
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`IPR AS TIME-BARRED UNDER § 315(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Factual and Procedural Background ............................................................... 1
`(IPR2018-01331) should be terminated. ........................................................ 2
`A. Under GoPro’s binding authority, continuing with this IPR would go
`beyond the PTAB’s statutory limits. ......................................................... 2
`The Board has full authority to terminate this IPR. .................................. 4
`B.
`C.
`Petitioners Sling’s arguments against termination fail. ............................. 5
`III. The Google and Comcast joinders do not change the result. ......................... 6
`IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 10
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Because the Petition is time-barred under § 315(b), this IPR proceeding
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`BioDelivery Scis. Int’l v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.,
`2019-1643 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2019) .................................................................. 4
`
`Click-To-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., YellowPages.com, LLC,
`899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................... 1, 2, 7
`
`GoPro, Inc., v. 360Heros, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01754 (Aug. 23, 2019) ................................................................ passim
`
`GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 3, 4, 5, 6
`
`GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00072 (Dec. 10, 2014) ........................................................... 3, 4, 5, 6
`
`La Pub Serv. Comm’n v. FFC,
`476 U.S. 355 (1986) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Health. Sys. Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 4
`
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`Case IPR2018-00752 (Sept. 12, 2018) .............................................................. 10
`
`Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC,
`IPR2018-00914 (Mar. 13, 2019) ..................................................................... 8, 9
`
`SecureBuy, LLC v. CardinalCommerce Corp.,
`CBM2014-00035 (Apr. 25, 2014) ....................................................................... 5
`
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc.,
`IPR2013-00454 (Sept. 25, 2013) ......................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ........................................................................................ 1, 2, 3, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 3, 5, 6
`
`5 U.S.C. § 559 ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706 ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`Rules
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4 ........................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .......................... 8
`
`PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Revision 10) (Sept. 20, 2018) .............. 2, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`Amended Complaint of June a, bcde, in E.D. Tex. Case No. de- cv-gh
`
`Stipulated Motion in D. Colorado Case No. 17-cv-2097
`
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: DISH Network LLC
`
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: Sling TV LLC
`
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: EchoStar Technologies
`LLC
`
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: Sling Media LLC
`
`Defendants’ Supplemental Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement
`
`Defendants’ Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to An-
`swer Complaint
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions
`
`Expert Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Scott Acton on May 10, 2019
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling, et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-
`CV-02097-RBJ, Dkt. 135-1 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2018), Expert Declara-
`tion of Alan Bovik
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling, et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-
`CV-02097-RBJ, Dkt. 151 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2019), Markman Order
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2002/0144271 A1 for Appl. No.
`09/197,441 (“Behagen”)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Scott Acton on May 10, 2019 in
`IPR2018-01331 on U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610.
`
`RFC 2435, RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video, Octo-
`ber 1998
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC, et al., Civil Action
`No. 2:18-CV-03629-GW-JC, Dkt. 67 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018),
`Scheduling Order
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`nis Board’s authority to institute IPRs is limited by Congress in op U.S.C.
`
`§ odp(b). ne Precedential Opinion Panel in GoPro recently interpreted Congress’s
`
`command and is binding on all members of the PTAB. Under § odp(b) and GoPro,
`
`it is undisputed that Petitioners Sling were time-barred at the time of the Petition.
`
`nus, the panel has the power to—and indeed must—revisit its institution decision
`
`to comply with the statute under binding agency authority.
`
`Google’s and Comcast’s joinder does not change the result. Under the proper
`
`application of § odp(b), the parties that funded and controlled the work that was the
`
`basis of each petition at issue in the IPR, and have controlled this IPR from institu-
`
`tion until now are time-barred. nat is Sling—the real party in interest behind the
`
`original petition and Google’s and Comcast’s copycat petitions. nus, this IPR and
`
`each joined IPR is time-barred, and this IPR must be terminated in its entirety.
`
`I.
`
`Factual and Procedural Background
`
`Petitioners Sling TV LLC, Sling Media, LLC, DISH Network LLC, and DISH
`
`Technologies LLC (collectively, “Sling”) were served with an amended complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ’pop patent in June bcde. Exs. bccd, & bcco-ca. Sling
`
`filed the petition in this IPR more than a year later, on July o, bcdg. nese facts on
`
`undisputed. Based on these facts, Patent Owner Realtime argued in its Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper a) and Sur-reply (Paper g) that the petition was time-barred under
`
`§ odp(b) and the Federal Circuit’s Click-to-Call decision. See Click-to-Call Techs.,
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`LP v. Ingenio, Inc., YellowPages.com, LLC, gtt F.od dobd (Fed. Cir. bcdg) (en banc).
`
`ne Board nonetheless instituted, concluding that § odp(b) and Click-to-Call
`
`did not apply because the named plaintiff in the June bcde complaint lacked standing
`
`to assert the ’adc patent. Paper t at db–dh. On August bo, bcdt, the PTAB’s Prece-
`
`dential Opinion Panel (POP) issued a unanimous decision addressing the same issue
`
`and reached the opposite conclusion. GoPro, Inc., v. UVWHeros, Inc., IPRbcdg-cdeph,
`
`Paper og (Aug. bo, bcdt) (Precedential). ne POP held that “service of a pleading
`
`asserting a claim alleging infringement triggers the one-year time-bar under § odp(b),
`
`even where the serving party lacks standing to sue[.]” Id. at a (emphasis added).
`
`II. Because the Petition is time-barred under § 315(b), this IPR proceeding
`(IPR2018-01331) should be terminated.
`
`A. Under GoPro’s binding authority, continuing with this IPR would go
`beyond the PTAB’s statutory limits.
`
`ne POP was established by the PTO Director to create “binding norms for
`
`fair and efficient Board proceedings, and for establishing consistency across decision
`
`makers under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.” PTAB SOP b (Revision dc)
`
`(Sept. bc, bcdg) at o. In GoPro, the panel consisted of Director Iancu, Commissioner
`
`Hirschfeld, and Chief Judge Boalick. ne panel considered briefing by the parties,
`
`four briefs submitted by amici curiae, and oral arguments by counsel. GoPro, Papers
`
`ba–og. Based on the POP’s precedential decision, this Petition is time-barred under
`
`both § odp(b) and the en banc decision of the Board’s reviewing court.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`As binding precedent, GoPro should be followed. It also confirms that the
`
`PTAB is prohibited by statute and controlling law from reviewing this IPR. See §
`
`odp(b) (“An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition” is time-barred)
`
`(emphasis added). Maintaining this IPR would unduly expand the PTAB’s authority.
`
`As a statutory requirement, § odp(b) is a Congressional limit on the Board’s jurisdic-
`
`tion. See GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc., CBMbcdh-ccceb, Paper bc at h (Dec. dc,
`
`bcdh) (holding that a similar statutory bar to institution, § obp(a)(d), “is a statutory
`
`requirement and, thus, a Congressional limitation on the Board’s jurisdiction.”);
`
`GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc., egt F.od doct, dodo (Fed. Cir. bcdp) (finding no error
`
`with the Board’s treatment of § obp(a)(d) as a “jurisdictional limit”).
`
`nus, proceeding with this IPR is contrary to principles of administrative law.
`
`“Indeed, an agency may not confer power upon itself. To permit an agency to expand
`
`its power in the face of a congressional limitation on its jurisdiction would be to
`
`grant to the agency power to override Congress.” GTNX, CBMbcdh-ccceb, Paper
`
`bc at h (quoting La Pub Serv. Comm’n v. FFC, hea U.S. opp, oeh–ep (dtga)); GTNX,
`
`egt F.od at dodo (same). nus, under § odp(b) and GoPro, the Board must deny in-
`
`stitution of this IPR. See GTNX, CBMbcdh-ccceb, Paper bc at h (institution of a
`
`petition barred by statute “is not within the discretion of the Board”).
`
`nis Petition should also be terminated because Congress gave the power and
`
`3
`
`
`
`duty to institute IPRs to the PTO Director. op U.S.C. § odh. nus, the Board “insti-
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`tutes the trial on behalf of the Director.” oe C.F.R. § hb.h(a). Here, Director Iancu
`
`established the POP system and personally decided GoPro. ne Board should not
`
`maintain its decision to institute this IPR under circumstances the Director deemed
`
`beyond the PTAB’s statutory authority. To proceed to a final decision in an IPR
`
`instituted on behalf of the Director based on grounds the Director found erroneous
`
`is unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious. See p U.S.C. §§ ppt, eca(b)(A).
`
`B.
`
`The Board has full authority to terminate this IPR.
`
`As the Federal Circuit repeatedly held, “there is no requirement that once in-
`
`stituted, IPRs must proceed through final written decisions.” BioDelivery Scis. Int’l
`
`v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., 2019-1643, Slip Op. at 6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2019).
`
`“Indeed, § 318(a) on its face provides that a ‘proceeding can be ‘dismissed’ after it
`
`is instituted.” Id. (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Health. Sys. Inc., 839 F.3d
`
`1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Federal Circuit has also held administrative agen-
`
`cies possess inherent, “default authority” to reconsider their decisions. Id.; Med-
`
`tronic at 1385. Nothing prevents the Board from exercising that authority here.
`
`The Board has often revisited its decisions to institute and terminated IPRs
`
`following institution. See, e.g., BioDelivery at 7; Medtronic at 1373–74; GTNX, Inc.
`
`v. INTTRA, Inc., 789 F.3d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Indeed, the Board’s decision
`
`in GTNX is closely analogous to the facts here. CBM2014-00072, Paper at 4 (Dec.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`10, 2014). Like here, GTNX concerned the interpretation of a statute (§ 315(a)(1))
`
`that would have barred the petition. Id. at 4.
`
`In GTNX, the Board instituted CBM review on four petitions. But after the
`
`patent owner had filed its preliminary responses to the CBMs, the PTAB designated
`
`as precedential its decision in SecureBuy, LLC v. CardinalCommerce Corp.,
`
`CBM2014-00035, Paper 12 (Apr. 25, 2014). GTNX, Paper 20 at 2. The patent owner
`
`moved to dismiss, and the Board granted the motion, even though the request to file
`
`the motion was made outside the 14-day period to request rehearing. Id. 3–5.
`
`ne petitioner appealed to the Federal Circuit, which held that the Board acted
`
`within its authority when it vacated its earlier institution decisions and terminated
`
`the CBMs. GTNX, egt F.od at dodb. ne court identified “nothing in the statute or
`
`regulations that precludes the Board from reconsidering an initial institution decision
`
`or invoking the § obp(a)(d) bar on its own, let alone inviting the patentee to file a
`
`motion more than dh days after institution.” Id.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners Sling’s arguments against termination fail.
`ne POP’s precedential decisions are “binding Board authority in subsequent
`
`matters involving similar facts or issues.” SOP b at dd. Sling argues that the word
`
`“subsequent” means that the Board should not follow GoPro, because this IPR was
`
`instituted before the GoPro decision instituted. But a decision on this motion and
`
`any final written decision in this case will be “subsequent” to GoPro. Indeed, the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`Federal Circuit has found that the Board is free to reconsider its institution decisions
`
`or even invoke statutory bars on its own. GTNX, egt F.od at dodb. When that hap-
`
`pens, the Board would apply current binding authority—not overruled, erroneous
`
`authority. ne Board should decline Petitioners’ invitation to decide this motion con-
`
`trary to “binding Board authority” or to reach a final written decision in an IPR that
`
`was improperly instituted according to senior officials at the PTO and PTAB.
`
`Sling’s arguments about “waiver” are also belied by the facts and the law.
`
`Patent Owner raised the time-bar issue under § odp(b) in the POPR and POR, and
`
`contacted Sling the day GoPro issued. Patent Owner’s decision to forgo rehearing
`
`does not operate as waiver, as the Federal Circuit has held. See GTNX, egt F.od at
`
`dodb–do. Nor is a statutory bar under § odp(b) even waivable. See GTNX, CBMbcdh-
`
`cceb, Paper bc at h (petitioner “provides no persuasive authority that such a statutory
`
`requirement may be waived”); GTNX, egt F.od at dodo (finding no error in Board’s
`
`treatment of § obp(a)(d) as a “jurisdictional limit” that cannot be waived).
`
`III. The Google and Comcast joinders do not change the result.
`
`If the Board vacates its earlier institution decision and terminates the IPR, the
`
`challenge to the ’pop patent by Google and Comcast in this IPR will likewise be
`
`terminated. See ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc., IPRbcdo-cchph, Paper
`
`db at a (Sept. bp, bcdo) (Informative) (denying institution of petition accompanied
`
`by motion for joinder, because existing IPR was terminated after institution). nis is
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`the lawful result because an IPR “may not be instituted if the petition requesting the
`
`proceeding” is time-barred. § odp(b) (emphasis added). Here, it is undisputed that
`
`Sling’s petition requesting this proceeding was time-barred.
`
`Terminating this IPR is also the just result. Google and Comcast were free to
`
`submit petitions separate from the Sling petition. But they chose to wait until after
`
`the Sling petition was instituted and to ride along with Sling’s work. As Google and
`
`Comcast represented in their motions for joinder, and as the Board confirmed, the
`
`Google petition is “substantially identical” to the Sling petition (Paper bh at o), and
`
`the Comcast petition “asserts only the grounds” and “relies on the same exhibits and
`
`expert declaration” as the Sling petition (Paper bp at o). By this choice, Google and
`
`Comcast benefit from whatever strengths the earlier petition may have, but must also
`
`live with their defects, including that it was never properly instituted.
`
`Had Comcast and Google joined the Sling petition at the outset, they would be
`
`in the same position, subject to the Sling petitioners’ time bar. See Click-To-Call,
`
`gtt F.od at doog (“Petitioners are properly treated as an undifferentiated unit that
`
`filed an untimely petition.”). Comcast and Google should not be rewarded for joining
`
`the Sling IPR after institution rather than at the outset.
`
`Indeed, the statutory real-party-in-interest provisions demand that Google and
`
`Comcast be barred just as if they had been part of the original petition. § odp(b).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Google’s and Comcast’s petitions are substantively identical to Sling’s petition. Ac-
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`cording to that petition, no party other than the Sling petitioners had any control over
`
`or contributed any funding toward the preparation of that petition. Paper b at h.
`
`Google and Comcast agreed to take “understudy” roles in the IPR. Paper bh at p;
`
`Paper bp at p. ne deposition of Realtime’s expert was conducted before joinder of
`
`Google and Comcast, by counsel for Sling. Ex. dcbt at b, and the reply brief was
`
`signed solely by counsel for Sling. Paper ba at oc.
`
`As the primary (or only) funders of the IPR that Comcast and Google substan-
`
`tively copied, and as the parties that have controlled the joined IPR through this
`
`entire proceeding, the Sling petitioners are real parties in interest to Comcast’s and
`
`Google’s IPRs—both before and after joinder. PTAB Trial Practice Guide, ee Fed.
`
`Reg. hg,epa at hg,eac (Aug. dh, bcdb) (“a party that funds and directs and controls
`
`an IPR or PGR petition or proceeding constitutes a ‘real party-in-interest’”). Any
`
`IPR that Google or Comcast may seek to continue without the Sling petitioners is
`
`time-barred because their real parties in interest are time-barred. § odp(b).
`
`Further, any argument that Google’s and Comcast’s time bars should be disre-
`
`garded because of the exception for seeking joinder under § odp(c) must be rejected.
`
`If joinder is denied—in this case because there is no instituted case to be joined—
`
`then the § odp(c) exception does not apply. Proppant Express Investments, LLC v.
`
`Oren Techs., LLC, IPRbcdg-cctdh, Paper og (Mar. do, bcdt) (Precedential). Joinder
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`is within the discretion of the Director. § odp(c). ne Director, as a member of the
`
`unanimous POP in Proppant, provided direction for how that discretion must be
`
`exercised. Proppant was decided before the Board’s decision on Comcast’s and
`
`Google’s motions for joinder and is “binding Board authority” under SOP b. ne
`
`POP in Proppant warned that the § odp(c) exception cannot be allowed to “swallow
`
`the rule” or permit parties to “circumvent the time limitation in § odp(b).” Proppant,
`
`Paper og at dg. Comcast and Google should not be permitted to circumvent the time
`
`bar by way of joinder, transmuting petitions with time-barred petitioners or time-
`
`barred real parties in interest into timely petitions.
`
`ne unfairness and risk of circumvention that would result if Google or Com-
`
`cast is permitted to maintain this IPR is further highlighted by the new IPR and mo-
`
`tion for joinder filed by the Sling petitioners on September }~, (cid:127)(cid:128)}(cid:129). IPRbcdt-cdpgt,
`
`Papers b–o. In that new petition and motion, Sling ask to be joined with Google’s
`
`petition (or, in the alternative, with Comcast’s petition) if Sling is terminated from
`
`this IPR. IPRbcdt-cdpgt, Paper o at d–b. If this joinder-upon-joinder were granted,
`
`then Sling would be back in primary control of the IPR that they have funded and
`
`controlled thus far—even though every IPR petition involved was time-barred under
`
`§ odp(b), due to a petitioner, a real party in interest, or both.
`
`Additional factors increase the unfairness to Realtime from permitting Comcast
`
`or Google to maintain this IPR. By seeking joinder in this case, Comcast and Google
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`not only benefitted from the work and money expended by the time-barred Sling
`
`petitioners. ney also benefitted from a schedule that will result in a final written
`
`decision main months earlier than any IPR that they could have filed on their own.
`
`Trial in Realtime’s district court litigation against Google is scheduled for April e,
`
`bcbc. Ex. bcde. If this IPR proceeds on its existing schedule, it will reach final writ-
`
`ten decision about a month before that trial date.
`
`Instead, had Google filed a stand-alone petition on February (cid:127)(cid:130), (cid:127)(cid:128)}(cid:129)—the date
`
`it requested joinder—an IPR based upon that petition would continue until several
`
`months after the scheduled trial, and the Board may have exercised its discretion to
`
`deny institution on that basis. NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., Case
`
`IPRbcdg-ccepb, Paper g at dt–bc (Sept. db, bcdg) (Precedential) (exercising discre-
`
`tion to deny institution because it would be inefficient for Board to consider issues
`
`that the district court would resolve first).
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`nis IPR and each IPR joined into it was time barred. Joinder in this IPR was
`
`improper, as there was never a validly instituted IPR to join. Even if joinder were
`
`permissible, the joinder exception to § odp(b) cannot be used to maintain the sub-
`
`stance of an IPR that was solely funded and controlled by time-barred parties, in
`
`circumvention of the statutory scheme. nis motion should be granted and this IPR
`
`should be terminated in its entirety.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`/ Philip X. Wang/
`
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`Neil A. Rubin (Reg. (cid:132)(cid:130),(cid:128)~(cid:128))
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`pwang@raklaw.com
`rubin@raklaw.com
`rak_realtimedata@raklaw.com
`
`Dated: September da, bcdt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that “Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate”
`
`(Paper No. 30) was served on September 16, 2019, by filing this document through
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End system as well as delivering a copy
`
`via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record for Petitioners:
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Adam R. Shartzer
`Brian J. Livedalen
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Telephone: 202-783-5070
`Email: IPR45035-0002IP4@fr.com
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Adam R. Shartzer
`Brian J. Livedalen
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Telephone: 202-783-5070
`Email: IPR45035-0002IP4@fr.com
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Phillip W. Citroën
`S. Emily Lee
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 2005
`Telephone: 202-551-1700
`Email: PH-Google-Realtime-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`James L. Day
`Daniel Callaway
`FARELLA BRAUN + MARTELL LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Email: jday@fbm.com
`Email: dcallaway@fbm.com
`Email: calendar@fbm.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 16, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Philip X. Wang/
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`
`
`
`
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
